Inadequacy of Land Acquisition Compensation Based on Nature of Land Cannot Be Agitated Under Writ Jurisdiction

The petitioner’s land (210 Sq. Meters in Mauza-Mor, Rohtas) was acquired for a National Highway project.

The District Land Acquisition Officer (DLAO) categorized the land as agricultural based on the 1971 R.S. Khatian and passed an award on 30.07.2018.

The petitioner contended the land was commercial and alleged the award was ex-parte without notice under Section 5A.

The petitioner challenged the award before the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner (Case No. 9 of 1990), who dismissed it on 02.09.2021.

A subsequent challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Judge-II, Rohtas (Civil Misc. No. 62 of 2021), was also dismissed on 11.02.2026.

The petitioner then moved the High Court under writ jurisdiction.

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable to adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the nature of land and the adequacy of compensation after failing in statutory forums?

2. Whether the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy for the determination of compensation under the 2013 Act?

Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 provides that any person interested who has not accepted the award may require the Collector to refer the matter to the "Authority" for determination regarding measurement, compensation amount, or nature of rights.

Section 60 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 outlines the powers of said Authority, granting it the same powers as a Civil Court under the CPC, 1908, including summoning witnesses and receiving evidence on affidavits.

The court also reaffirmed the principle that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided under Article 226.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s primary grievance—the inadequacy of compensation due to the "commercial" vs. "agricultural" nature of the land—is a purely factual dispute.

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence before the lower authorities or the High Court to substantiate the commercial claim.

Since the petitioner had already exhausted remedies under the Arbitration Act and lost, the Court held that writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for re-evaluating evidence.

The Court identified that a specific statutory remedy exists under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, which allows for a formal "Reference" to an Authority with judicial powers to adjudicate such disputes.

The Court reasoned that protecting the petitioner’s right to fair compensation required directing them toward this specialized statutory mechanism rather than dismissing the plea entirely.

The Collector is directed to refer the matter to the appropriate Authority to decide the claim regarding the commercial nature of the land. The entire process is ordered to be concluded within nine months from the date of the order. The writ application was disposed of with these directions.