Facts
The Petitioners’ land (26R) in Osmanabad was acquired for widening National Highway No. 211 under the National Highways Act, 1956
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4An initial award was passed on November 3, 2014, for ₹64,09,201, followed by a subsequent award on June 14, 2018, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 4-5Respondent No. 5 (Deputy Collector) refused to pay compensation for 2,168 sq. meters of the acquired land on the grounds that this portion was designated for a "service road" or "public purpose" and thus, according to Town Planning norms and building bye-laws, was not compensable
Source reference: p. 4-7, para. 4, 8, 9The Petitioners sought a direction for payment of the full compensation amount deposited by the acquiring body with the Land Acquisition Officer
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2Issues
Whether the State is liable to pay compensation for land acquired for a service road or public utility (open spaces), or if such land can be taken free of cost under building bye-laws and development rules.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 11Law Applied
The power to regulate land use in a layout (reserving sites for streets or parks) does not equate to a right for the State to claim ownership without compensation.
Source reference: p. 9-10, para. 11The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which held that while a corporation may act as a custodian of public interest for reserved spaces, it cannot compel a transfer of property to itself free of cost without specific statutory sanction
Source reference: p. 9-10, para. 11Landowners are entitled to compensation for amenity and open spaces acquired under the National Highways Act and Town Planning Act as per Shirdi Nagar Panchayat v. Kishor Sharad Borawake and Ors. and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.
Source reference: p. 10-11, para. 12Reasoning
The Court rejected the Respondents' contention that land designated for service roads or public purposes in a sanctioned layout should be exempted from compensation based on building bye-laws or Government notifications from 1974.
Source reference: p. 7-8, para. 8-9The legal issue is "no more res-integra," as established by the Supreme Court.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 11Even if a landowner holds land in "trust" for the public benefit due to a layout reservation, the State cannot seize legal ownership via acquisition without paying the fair market value determined under the law.
Source reference: p. 10, para. 11Since the acquiring body (NHAI) had already deposited the full amount with Respondent No. 5, the Court found the Deputy Collector’s refusal to disburse the portion relating to the service road to be arbitrary and contrary to established judicial precedents.
Source reference: p. 7, 11, para. 7, 13Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that Petitioners are entitled to compensation for the entire area, including the portion used for the service road.
The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Court directed Respondent No. 5 to pay the determined compensation with consequential benefits within two months.
Source reference: p. 11-12, Order (i)-(ii)The Court further imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on Respondent No. 5 if payment is delayed beyond the stipulated two-month period.
Source reference: p. 12, Order (iii)Original Court PDF
Youvraj Namdeo Khaladkar And AnothersvsThe National Highway Authority Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway Its Secretary And Or
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in