Compulsory land acquisition for National Highway projects requires joint survey verification and strict statutory adherence.

The Appellant/Petitioner, Hem Sagar Uprety, claimed ownership of two contiguous parcels of land (comprising Dag Nos. 1269, 1270/1502, and 1278/1283) in Kanglatombi Village, where he had constructed residential structures in 1992.

The lands were slated for acquisition for a four-lane National Highway project connecting Kanglatombi and Kangpokpi.

The Appellant initially filed W.P. (C) No. 348 of 2025 seeking to stop developmental activities until his representations were heard.

A Single Judge denied an interim stay on 28.04.2025, leading to the present Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 25 of 2025).

Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Kangpokpi, passed an order on 04.07.2025 claiming some of the lands were outside the project while others had already been awarded compensation, sparking a second petition, W.P. (C) No. 630 of 2025.

During the pendency of these matters, the High Court directed a joint site verification.

1. Whether the Appellant's private lands and structures were being encroached upon for the National Highway project without following statutory acquisition procedures.

2. Whether the specific extent of the Appellant's land required for the project could be identified through a joint scientific survey to determine compensation eligibility.

The court primarily applied the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), which governs the acquisition of land for the development and maintenance of national highways.

It emphasized the constitutional and statutory mandate that private property can only be acquired through the "due process of law," necessitating formal notification, hearing of objections, and the payment of compensation as prescribed under the Act and accompanying Rules.

The Court facilitated a resolution by ordering a joint site inspection/survey involving the Appellant, the National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation (NHIDCL), and State revenue officials.

This survey, conducted on 20.04.2026, successfully identified that a specific portion of the Appellant’s private land—measuring 674.75 square feet (approximately 0.0154 acres) in CS Dag No. 1099—was necessary for the highway project.

All parties, including the requisitioning body (NHIDCL) and the landholders, accepted the findings of the survey report.

Based on this consensus, the Court reasoned that the dispute regarding the identity and extent of the land was resolved, leaving only the statutory requirement for the State to initiate formal acquisition proceedings for the newly identified area.

The Court held that the identified 674.75 square feet of land is private property and ordered the Respondents to: (i) Commence formal land acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956; (ii) Provide due notice to the Appellant; and (iii) Strictly follow statutory procedures to determine and pay compensation.

No order as to costs was made.