Disputed ownership does not bar a compensation claim; entitlement may be determined under Sections 30–31.

The petitioner claimed rights over 60 square yards forming part of Khasra No. 2/14/1 in Village Nangli Sakrawati and sought compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) to treat the compensation claim as a representation and decide it after permitting the petitioner to inspect the record and make submissions

The LAC’s 2019 order recorded that possession had not then been taken and that the revenue record showed Manohar Lal as owner

The land was subsequently taken into possession in June 2021, transferred through the relevant authorities, and developed for National Highway NH-344M

The LAC stated that the petitioner relied on an agreement to sell, general power of attorney and will from Ram Kishore, but had not established that Ram Kishore held title; no compensation had been paid to anyone, and NHAI had deposited compensation with the LAC

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land despite the dispute over his title and the identity of the recorded owner

2. Whether the LAC should examine the petitioner’s claim and, if necessary, refer competing claims to the competent court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act was the statutory basis on which the petitioner had sought compensation

Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provide the mechanism for addressing disputes concerning entitlement to compensation and its apportionment; where entitlement is disputed, the LAC may make a reference for adjudication by the competent court

The judgment cited no judicial precedent and did not finally determine the petitioner’s title or entitlement.

The acquisition award had not been set aside, possession had been taken, and the land had been used for the highway project; the compensation had not, however, been paid to any person

Because the petitioner’s claimed chain of title was unproved and the recorded ownership was in another person’s name, the Court did not direct immediate payment to the petitioner

Instead, it left the LAC to examine the documents supporting the claim and, if a dispute remained, to refer the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the 1894 Act for adjudication

It directed the LAC to examine the supporting documents and consider releasing compensation; if required, the LAC was to make a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the 1894 Act, to be adjudicated within six months

The writ petition was disposed of on those terms, without a final finding that the petitioner was entitled to compensation