In urgent acquisitions, authorities may reassess land classification and compensation before the final award.

The State acquired land for the Indo-Nepal Border Road under Sections 11(1) and 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

The appellant’s land was treated as residential for compensation purposes; possession was taken, compensation and solatium were paid, and the land was used for the road.

In 2017–2018, following an enquiry and a six-member committee’s report that the land was agricultural, the authorities sought repayment of alleged excess compensation.

The appellant’s writ petition challenging that action was dismissed by the Single Judge, who held that the initial payment was an estimate, the award under Section 37 remained unapproved, and any recovery must follow finalisation of the award and be in accordance with law.

The appellant appealed; the Division Bench condoned an 88-day delay in filing the appeal.

1. Whether the respondents could verify the nature and valuation of the acquired land before preparation and approval of the final award under the 2013 Act.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition, in the circumstances, disclosed illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting appellate interference.

Section 40(3) of the 2013 Act permits the Collector, in an urgency acquisition, to take possession after tendering 80% of the compensation as estimated by the Collector; such payment is not itself the final determination of compensation.

Section 40(4) permits the appropriate Government to direct that provisions of Chapters II to VI shall not apply in an urgency case.

The final award is contemplated under Section 37, while Section 64 provides a reference to the Authority for a person interested who has not accepted the award, including an objection to the amount of compensation.

Executive power may be exercised consistently with the Constitution and legislation; executive instructions may supplement, but cannot supplant, statutory provisions.

The Court also relied on the reasoning in Girish Kedia v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 6863 of 2018 and analogous cases, decided 29 November 2024, concerning the same acquisition proceedings.

Because the acquisition proceeded under Section 40, the compensation paid before an award was prepared and approved was an estimate rather than a final determination.

The Court therefore held that the respondents could verify the land’s nature and valuation before the award was finalised; the earlier description of the land as residential did not, by itself, bar that inquiry.

The appellant’s objection to the eventual classification and compensation could be pursued through a Section 64 reference once an award was made, subject to statutory requirements and limitation.

The LARRA order concerning another landholder did not determine the appellant’s case because its factual context was not shown to be identical.

The Court nevertheless affirmed that any recovery of a differential amount must be undertaken in accordance with law and only after finalisation of the award.

The appeal was dismissed; the appellant remained at liberty to pursue a Section 64 remedy if aggrieved by the award, and any recovery was subject to the directions and observations in the impugned order.