Court Mandates Demarcation to Verify Land Utilization and Ensure Compensation Under the 2013 Act

The petitioner, a farmer and owner of land at Khasra No. 113/1 in Village Sukalipali, alleged that the State authorities utilized a portion of his land for the widening of the Sakarra–Bhothiya road without initiating formal acquisition proceedings or paying compensation

Despite submitting representations to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and the Collector in November 2016, the authorities proceeded with construction

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction for compensation under the 2013 Act and a stay on construction

The State contended that the road was for public purpose and that the extent of land utilized was a disputed question of fact

1. Whether the State utilized the petitioner’s private land for road widening without following the due process of law

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

The court primarily relied on the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which mandates that no land can be acquired for public purposes without following the statutory procedure for acquisition and payment of fair compensation

It further adhered to the principle that constitutional and statutory rights regarding property ownership cannot be bypassed by the State through high-handed or arbitrary administrative actions

The Court observed that while the petitioner claimed his recorded land was encroached upon, the State disputed the exact boundary and extent of the utilization

The Court reasoned that since the matter involved a "disputed question of fact" regarding the measurement of land, a factual determination through official demarcation was a prerequisite for any legal relief

The Court applied the principle that if a demarcation exercise confirms the utilization of private land for public infrastructure (road widening), the State is legally bound to transition from informal possession to formal acquisition under the 2013 Act to satisfy the petitioner’s statutory right to compensation

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned authorities to conduct a formal demarcation of the land in question with notice to and participation of the petitioner

No orders were made as to costs