Authorities may disburse land-acquisition compensation to an authorized representative with the landowners’ consent.

Four persons held equal shares in land acquired for the Narmada Canal project.

In 2012, two co-owners, Shobhanaben and Niranjanaben, agreed that the petitioner would receive compensation attributable to their combined 50% share.

They later executed powers of attorney authorising him to act in the acquisition proceedings and receive compensation, and filed affidavits confirming that they had no objection to payment to him.

The Deputy Collector rejected the petitioner’s requests for payment in 2022 and 2023; the Land Acquisition Officer also rejected his request in 2025.

The petitioner challenged those orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the compensation attributable to the two co-owners’ 50% share, given their agreement, powers of attorney, and affidavits of consent.

Whether the Government Resolution dated 5 May 2022, which restricted payment to owners or their legal heirs, barred payment to the petitioner as an authorised representative.

The Court considered the Government Resolution dated 5 May 2022, under which compensation was to be paid to the owner or legal heirs and not to a third party, power-of-attorney holder, or relative.

It also considered the parties’ agreement concerning compensation, the powers of attorney authorising the petitioner to receive compensation, and the co-owners’ affidavits confirming their consent to payment to him.

The Court cited no statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision; it held that, on the particular facts, the Resolution did not prevent payment where the owners consented and no dispute existed between them and the petitioner.

The Court found that the agreement expressly provided for the petitioner to receive compensation attributable to the two co-owners’ shares.

Their powers of attorney authorised him to act in the acquisition process and receive compensation, while their affidavits confirmed their consent to disbursement in his favour.

Because the co-owners and petitioner had no dispute over payment, the Court held that the Government Resolution’s restriction on payment to third parties did not preclude payment to the petitioner in these circumstances.

It directed the respondents to pay the petitioner ₹2,65,72,705, representing the 50% compensation share attributable to Shobhanaben and Niranjanaben, within six weeks of receiving the order.