Competent authorities must decide, by a reasoned order, compensation claims for unacquired land used in highway construction.

The petitioner claimed that, in addition to 0.040 hectare of land bearing Khasra No. 192/1A acquired pursuant to acquisition proceedings culminating in an award dated 27.09.2016, a further area of 1,248 square metres from Khasra Nos. 192/1A and 192/1B had been utilised for construction of the National Highway without acquisition or payment of compensation.

A revenue demarcation report/Panchnama dated 09.05.2019 allegedly recorded that the additional area had been affected by the road and required to be acquired or purchased by the Government.

The petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.08.2019 seeking compensation, but it remained undecided.

Relying on an earlier order in Mathura Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 797 of 2017, the petitioner sought either payment of compensation or a direction for consideration of his representation.

The State submitted that no return had yet been filed and that the merits should not be adjudicated at that stage.

1. Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation seeking compensation for the additional 1,248 square metres allegedly utilised for construction of the National Highway.

2. Whether the High Court could direct payment of compensation or determine the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement in the absence of a response/return from the authorities.

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that a competent statutory authority must consider a duly submitted representation and pass an independent, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The Court did not determine the petitioner’s substantive entitlement to compensation, noting that such entitlement had to be examined under the applicable land-acquisition and compensation provisions on the basis of the available material.

The Court also followed the procedural approach adopted in the earlier matter concerning similarly utilised land, where directions had been issued for expeditious consideration of compensation.

The petitioner’s allegation regarding utilisation of the additional land was supported, at this stage, by the asserted demarcation report and the pending representation.

However, the State had not filed its return, and the factual and legal merits of the alleged encroachment, acquisition, utilisation, and compensation entitlement were therefore not appropriate for final adjudication in the petition.

Balancing these considerations, the Court directed the concerned authority to examine the representation independently, apply the relevant law and available record, and issue a reasoned decision, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim.

The decision was required to be made strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within 60 days from production of a certified copy of the order.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the compensation claim.

No order as to costs was made.