Land cannot vest in the Central Government under the National Highways Act absent a Section 3D notification.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 3 kathas and 10 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 1121, Periodic Patta No. 384, at Khatual village under Morabazar Mouza, Amguri Circle, Sivasagar.

She asserted that 11 lechas of her land had been acquired for four-laning of National Highway No. 37 under an award allegedly made under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, and that she received ₹4,78,908 as compensation on 11 July 2017.

A subsequent joint verification by the Circle Officer reportedly found that only 7 lechas were required, leading the petitioner to challenge the alleged reduction of the acquired area and to claim additional compensation for her dwelling house.

The writ petition sought, inter alia, compensation for the house, quashing of the joint verification report, and a declaration that reassessment of the acquisition was illegal.

The petitioner had not produced the notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act, nor an authenticated copy of the alleged Section 3G award.

Upon the Court’s direction, the respondents stated that no notification under Section 3D had been issued in respect of the petitioner’s land and that the payment made to her related only to zirat standing on Government land, not acquisition of her land.

Whether the petitioner’s land had been legally acquired and vested in the Central Government in the absence of a notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to enhanced or additional compensation for the alleged acquisition of her land and dwelling house.

Whether the joint verification report and alleged reassessment of the acquired area were liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, under which acquisition proceedings commence with a notification of the land proposed to be acquired under Section 3A, while the land vests in the Central Government only upon publication of a declaration under Section 3D.

The Court further considered Section 3G, which governs determination and payment of compensation, and Section 3G(5), under which a dispute regarding the amount of compensation may be referred for determination by an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the Act.

The Court also applied the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be exercised where the claimed relief is legally unavailable or is founded on facts unsupported by the statutory acquisition record.

The Court found that the petitioner had not produced the statutory notifications establishing acquisition, particularly the Section 3D notification necessary for vesting of the land in the Central Government.

Despite being specifically directed to produce that notification, the respondents confirmed that no such notification existed in relation to the petitioner’s land.

Consequently, the Court held that no land belonging to the petitioner had vested in or been acquired by the Central Government.

The payment of ₹4,78,908 was treated, on the respondents’ explanation, as compensation for zirat standing on Government land and not as compensation for acquisition of the petitioner’s land.

Since there was no lawful acquisition, the question of inadequate compensation for the land or dwelling house did not arise.

The statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) could therefore not assist the petitioner, and the challenges to the joint verification report and reassessment were held to be misconceived.

In the absence of a Section 3D notification, the petitioner’s land was not acquired or vested in the Central Government; hence, no claim for enhanced compensation for the land or dwelling house arose.

The challenges to the joint verification report and reassessment were likewise untenable.

Finding the case unsuitable for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court dismissed the writ petition.