Fresh Demarcation Mandated to Determine Land Utilization for National Highway and Subsequent Compensation Entitlement.

The Petitioner, owner of 0.25 acres of agricultural land at Village Mudhipar (Khasra No. 352/5), alleged that the Respondent authorities utilized and acquired her land for the construction of a National Highway without following formal acquisition proceedings

The Petitioner contended that no compensation was paid, nor were rehabilitation benefits extended, in violation of the statutory mandate

The Respondents raised a dispute regarding the exact identity and location of the land, leading to a joint submission by all parties that a fresh demarcation was necessary to resolve the factual controversy

1. Whether the subject land belonging to the Petitioner was actually utilized for the construction of the National Highway, thereby necessitating a fresh demarcation

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation and rehabilitation benefits under the Act of 2013 if the land is found to be utilized for public purposes

The Court primarily considered the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which mandates the legal procedure for land acquisition and the payment of fair market value compensation and resettlement benefits

It also invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure the protection of constitutional and statutory rights against arbitrary state action

Additionally, the court applied the procedural principle that factual disputes regarding land boundaries in revenue matters are best resolved through official demarcation by competent revenue authorities

The Court observed that the core of the dispute was factual rather than purely legal, centered on whether the Highway construction encroached upon Khasra No. 352/5

Given the "allegations and counter-allegations" regarding the location, the Court reasoned that a fresh demarcation by a specialized team of revenue officials (Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, and Patwari) was the only efficacious way to "ascertain the true factual position"

The Court clarified that it was not adjudicating the merits of the claims at this stage but was facilitating a transparent process to determine if a "taking" of land had occurred

If the encroachment is confirmed by the demarcation report, the legal obligation of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to initiate acquisition and compensation proceedings under the 2013 Act would be triggered automatically

The Court held that the demarcation must be completed within 30 days of the order

It further ordered that if the land is found to be utilized for the National Highway, the Respondents must initiate proceedings for compensation and statutory benefits under the 2013 Act and pass a reasoned order within four months thereafter

The Court maintained neutrality, stating these directions do not constitute an adjudication on merits but are intended to facilitate a lawful determination of the controversy