Courts may require NHAI to consider compensation claims but cannot compel acquisition proceedings by mandamus.

The petitioners, whose properties are situated in Moratagi, Devarahippargi, Kumatagi and Jeratagi, alleged that structures and/or land were affected by highway works without acquisition proceedings or payment of compensation.

They sought, among other reliefs, directions to initiate acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 and pay compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, along with solatium and interest.

The Court noted that the controversy was covered by a Division Bench judgment dated 10 September 2026, which had modified a Single Judge’s direction to initiate acquisition proceedings and instead directed the National Highways Authority to consider the claimants’ representations.

1. Whether the petitioners could obtain a direct mandamus requiring the authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay compensation.

2. Whether the appropriate relief was instead to direct the NHAI authorities to consider the petitioners’ representations and pass orders in accordance with law.

The petitioners invoked the National Highways Act, 1956 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 as the bases for acquisition and compensation.

The Court followed the Division Bench ruling in CCC No. 200085/2026 and connected matters, including W.A. No. 200157/2016 and connected matters (10 September 2026), which held that a court should not issue a positive direction compelling acquisition proceedings; it may instead require the authority to consider a representation and decide it in accordance with law.

That ruling relied on Kolhapur Municipal Corporation v. Vasant Mahadev Patil (Dead) through LRs, (2022) 5 SCC 758, including its holding that a resolution or budgetary provision alone does not constitute the statutory steps for acquisition under Section 127 of the MRTP Act.

The Court considered the petitioners’ requests for acquisition and compensation in light of the Division Bench ruling, which had rejected a positive direction to commence acquisition as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.

Rather than independently determining whether the petitioners were entitled to acquisition or compensation, the Court applied the alternative remedy adopted by the Division Bench: requiring the NHAI authorities to consider the representations and decide them in accordance with law.

The writ petitions were disposed of. The NHAI authorities were directed to consider the claimants’ representations and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month from receipt of a copy of the order.