Delay and acquiescence disentitle landowners from seeking RFCTLARR compensation re-determination.

The appellants’ lands at Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District, were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, for construction of a four-lane bypass road.

The acquisition notifications were issued in 2008–2012, and compensation awards under Section 3G of the National Highways Act were passed on 30.12.2013.

The appellants challenged the quantum of compensation before the District Collector-cum-Arbitrator and subsequently initiated proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which remained pending before the Principal District Court, Dindigul.

Relying on Section 105(3) and the First Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“RFCTLARR Act”), together with the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways guidelines dated 28.12.2017, the appellants sought re-determination of compensation.

The learned Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches, holding that they had approached the Court nearly seven years after the 2017 guidelines and had failed to explain the delay.

1. Whether the appellants were entitled to a writ directing re-determination of compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and the 28.12.2017 governmental guidelines, despite approaching the Court after substantial delay and after the success of similarly placed landowners in earlier proceedings?

2. Whether the appellants, having acquiesced in the original compensation awards and pursued statutory/arbitral remedies concerning quantum, could subsequently invoke the writ jurisdiction to claim enhanced compensation on the basis of earlier judgments?

3. Whether the applicability of the 2017 executive guidelines vis-à-vis the statutory provisions of the National Highways Act and the RFCTLARR Act required determination in the present appeals?

The Court considered Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, governing determination of compensation for land acquired for national highways, and Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, through which the statutory benefits under that Act were extended to acquisitions under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, including the National Highways Act.

It also considered the First Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways’ comprehensive guidelines dated 28.12.2017, particularly Clause 4.6(iii)(a)–(c), which distinguished between acquisitions completed before 01.01.2015 and those where awards had not been announced or compensation had not been deposited by that date.

However, equitable writ relief may be refused on grounds of delay, laches, acquiescence and the status of a claimant as a “fence-sitter.”

The Court relied on State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya, 1996 (6) SCC 267, and Banda Development Corporation v. Motilal Agarwal, 2011 (5) SCC 394, as considered by the learned Single Judge, and on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aravind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, which recognises that persons who remain silent and approach the Court only after similarly situated persons obtain relief may be denied relief on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence.

The Division Bench noted that the appellants’ compensation had already been determined under Section 3G of the National Highways Act and that they had pursued remedies challenging the quantum before the Arbitrator and in pending Section 34 proceedings.

Although the appellants relied on the 2017 guidelines and earlier judgments concerning non-deposit of compensation before 01.01.2015, they approached the Court only in 2024, after the earlier proceedings had concluded in favour of other landowners.

The Court held that the appellants’ conduct amounted to waiting to assess the outcome of parallel litigation before seeking identical benefits.

The proposed re-determination would more than double the compensation in some cases and could trigger numerous similar claims in respect of the large extent of land acquired in Ottanchathiram.

This had to be balanced against the financial burden on the State and the National Highways authorities.

Applying the principle against granting relief to fence-sitters, the Court held that delay, laches and acquiescence independently justified dismissal.

Consequently, it found it unnecessary to decide the substantive question concerning the applicability of the executive guidelines vis-à-vis the statute.

The writ appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay, laches and the appellants’ status as fence-sitters; the Court expressly declined to adjudicate the underlying issue concerning the legal applicability of the 28.12.2017 guidelines.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.