Corrigendum Cannot Add Land After Acquisition Is Complete; Tripura High Court Orders Return of 0.019 Acres and Requires Fresh Proceedings for Any Reacquisition

The petitioner claimed ownership of 0.040 acres of land in Mouja Barjala, West Tripura, recorded in Khatian No. 4288.

Of this, 0.021 acres had been acquired pursuant to notifications dated 27 October 2020 and 19 February 2021 for conversion of the Lichubagan–Agartala Airport road, and compensation of ₹7,94,565 had been paid to her.

After completion of the road project, the respondents issued a corrigendum dated 12 August 2022 seeking to acquire the petitioner’s remaining 0.019 acres, allegedly for road-related purposes, including parking, a footpath and movement of school students.

The petitioner’s earlier writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 85 of 2025, was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to decide her objections in accordance with law.

Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector, by order dated 25 March 2025, upheld the acquisition on the ground of public interest.

The petitioner consequently challenged the corrigendum and the subsequent order before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the corrigendum dated 12 August 2022 could lawfully be used to acquire the petitioner’s additional 0.019 acres after completion of the original acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation?

Whether the respondents could acquire the additional land without initiating fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure?

Whether the subsequent order dated 25 March 2025 upholding the corrigendum and acquisition was sustainable in law?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution in reviewing the legality of the acquisition process.

It considered the statutory scheme of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, including the requirement of a valid statutory notification and declaration for acquisition; the original proceedings had been initiated through the notification dated 27 October 2020 and declaration dated 19 February 2021.

The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Abdul Ali, Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2017, decided on 4 January 2017, where the Supreme Court held that, after an award, a corrigendum cannot retrospectively include land omitted from the original acquisition notifications; any omitted land must be acquired through fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

The Court further held that the impugned corrigendum could not substitute the statutory acquisition procedure, particularly as the original acquisition had concluded and compensation had already been paid.

The Court found that the original acquisition proceedings concerned only 0.021 acres of the petitioner’s land and had concluded with payment of compensation in 2021.

The subsequent corrigendum dated 12 August 2022 sought to bring the remaining 0.019 acres within the acquisition without initiating a fresh statutory process.

Applying the principle in Abdul Ali, the Court held that a corrigendum cannot be used to enlarge the subject matter of a concluded acquisition or to cure the absence of the requisite statutory notification and declaration for additional land.

Although the State asserted that the land was required for a public purpose, such as parking, a footpath and facilitating schoolchildren’s movement, the existence of a public purpose did not dispense with compliance with the acquisition statute.

The order dated 25 March 2025, being founded upon the invalid corrigendum, was therefore unsustainable.

The respondents were directed to return the said land to the petitioner.

The Court clarified that, if the land was genuinely required for parking, a footpath, schoolchildren’s movement or any other public purpose, the authorities were at liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings strictly in accordance with law.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.