Acquisition authorities must verify, demarcate, and apportion affected land before disbursing compensation.

The petitioners claimed to be registered purchasers of separate portions of Khasra No. 1360, Village Bemetara, which was acquired for construction/widening of National Highway No. 30, formerly National Highway No. 12A.

Their sale deeds were executed on 28.01.2015, followed by mutation in the revenue records.

The Section 3A notification under the National Highways Act, 1956, was published on 30.03.2015, and the petitioners asserted that their ownership claims had been brought to the acquisition authorities’ notice during the proceedings.

Although an award was passed on 11.01.2016, compensation allegedly remained undistributed.

A memorandum dated 26.11.2025 recorded that 0.676 hectare was standing in the petitioners’ names, of which 0.530 hectare was affected by the bypass, and directed revenue officials to ascertain the exact affected area attributable to each petitioner.

The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division-cum-NHDP-PIU, was impleaded as respondent No. 5 as a necessary and proper party.

The petitioners sought verification, demarcation, apportionment and disbursement of compensation, including the claimed amount of ₹23,11,245.

The Court applied the statutory framework governing acquisition of land for national highways under the National Highways Act, 1956, including the acquisition process initiated through publication of a notification under Section 3A and the applicable provisions governing determination, apportionment and payment of compensation.

The Court followed the principle that a writ court may issue a limited mandamus directing the competent statutory authority to consider and decide a pending claim in accordance with law, but should not ordinarily adjudicate disputed questions of title or finally determine competing entitlement where those matters fall within the authority’s statutory domain.

The Court found that the petitioners’ claims had been brought to the acquisition authorities’ notice before the award and that the subsequent official memorandum acknowledged the petitioners’ names in the revenue records and contemplated further identification of their respective affected portions.

Since the acquisition proceedings dated back to 2015 and compensation had not yet been disbursed, the Court considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to complete the pending administrative exercise.

However, because the Court was not required to determine disputed title or conclusively decide entitlement, it directed the authority to independently undertake the necessary verification, demarcation and apportionment, consider the relevant records—including the communication dated 03.11.2015, award dated 11.01.2016 and memorandum dated 26.11.2025—and pass a reasoned order under the applicable law.

The Court expressly preserved the authority’s freedom to determine the legally entitled recipient.

The exercise was directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from receipt of the certified copy of the order, with a reasoned order being passed.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the rival claims or the ultimate entitlement of any party.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.