Facts
The petitioner claimed to be residing with his family on land covered by Government Dag No. 748 at Barhanti Moniari, Kamrup, Assam, where residential structures had been constructed.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2The land was acquired for construction/expansion of National Highway No. 17 under the National Highways Act, 1956, with the Additional District Commissioner, Kamrup appointed as the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (“CALA”).
Source reference: p.5, para. 3Following proceedings under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act, the land vested absolutely in the Central Government.
Source reference: p.5, para. 4On 13 October 2023, the CALA issued notice under Section 3E, informing the petitioner that compensation of Rs.13,40,821 had been assessed for the land and structures, including zirat compensation.
Source reference: p.6, para. 5Dissatisfied with the valuation of the structures, the petitioner sought reassessment.
Source reference: p.6, para. 6Subsequently, the Public Works Department, after re-verification initiated by the District Commissioner and Circle Officer, revised the estimated value of the structures from Rs.12,96,437 to Rs.26,46,756, indicating an additional amount of Rs.13,50,319.
Source reference: p.6–7, paras. 7–8The petitioner approached the High Court seeking release of the revised compensation amount of Rs.26,46,756, together with solatium and interest.
Source reference: p.7–8, para. 9Issues
1. Whether the subsequent reassessment and revised estimate prepared by the Public Works Department, at the instance of authorities other than the CALA, could lawfully alter or supplement the compensation determined by the CALA under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956?
Source reference: p.10–12, paras. 14–172. Whether the petitioner could obtain enhanced compensation through a writ petition under Article 226, or whether the statutory arbitration mechanism under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act was the appropriate remedy?
Source reference: p.12–13, paras. 18–21Law Applied
The Court applied Sections 3D(2), 3E(1), 3G(1), 3G(5)–(7), and 3H(1)–(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Source reference: p.8–10, paras. 10–12Section 3D(2) provides that acquired land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances; Section 3G(1) empowers the CALA to determine compensation; Section 3H(1) requires the Central Government to deposit the determined amount before possession is taken; and Section 3H(2) requires the CALA to pay the deposited amount to the persons entitled.
Source reference: p.8–10, paras. 10–12Under Section 3G(5), a party dissatisfied with the compensation determined under Section 3G(1) may apply to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government for determination of the amount.
Source reference: p.11–12, para. 17The Court further held that reassessment undertaken by authorities lacking statutory jurisdiction under the National Highways Act could not substitute the determination made by the CALA.
Source reference: p.11–12, para. 17A claim of inadequacy or enhancement of compensation was therefore required to be pursued before the statutory arbitrator rather than directly through a writ petition.
Source reference: p.12–13, paras. 18–21Reasoning
The Court found that the original compensation had been determined by the CALA under Section 3G(1), approved by the requiring authority, deposited under Section 3H(1), and followed by a notice under Section 3E.
Source reference: p.7–10, paras. 9–12The later reassessment was initiated by the District Commissioner and Circle Officer and carried out by the Public Works Department without the involvement or direction of the CALA, who alone was the statutorily designated authority for determining compensation under the National Highways Act.
Source reference: p.11–12, para. 17Consequently, the revised estimate of Rs.26,46,756 could not be treated as a valid determination of enhanced compensation under Section 3G(1).
Source reference: p.12–13, paras. 18–21Since the petitioner’s substantive grievance was that the original compensation of Rs.13,40,821 was inadequate, the Court held that the dispute fell within Section 3G(5) and should be adjudicated by the appointed arbitrator, not in the writ proceedings.
Source reference: p.12–13, paras. 18–21Holding
The writ petition was disposed of without directing payment of the reassessed amount of Rs.26,46,756, solatium, or interest, since that amount had not been determined by the CALA in accordance with Section 3G(1).
The petitioner was permitted to apply for enhancement before Shri Bidyut Bikash Bhagawati, ACS, the arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5), and the arbitrator was directed to consider and dispose of the application expeditiously.
Source reference: p.13, paras. 20–22The petitioner was also permitted to receive the already determined amount of Rs.13,40,821 under protest; upon such request, the CALA was directed to release it at the earliest.
Source reference: p.14, para. 23There was no order as to costs.
Source reference: p.14, para. 24Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
National Highways Act, 19561
Original Court PDF
Shri Kumudeswar GoswamivsThe Union Of India And 8 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
