Land losers in National Highway acquisitions entitled to rehabilitation benefits under 2013 Act, Telangana HC rules

The appellants were four of twelve writ petitioners whose lands and structures were acquired for widening the Karimnagar–Warangal section of NH-563 under the National Highways Act, 1956 (“NH Act”). They did not dispute the compensation awarded for their acquired lands and structures, but claimed entitlement to rehabilitation and resettlement (“R&R”) benefits and infrastructural amenities under the Second and Third Schedules to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

The District Collector, Hanumakonda, considered their claim but, relying on a clarification from the Project Director, NHAI, rejected the claim by memo dated 15 May 2023. The writ petitioners challenged the non-preparation of an R&R scheme and non-passing of an award under the 2013 Act. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition and relegated them to the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, an interim stay operated for approximately two years; after the writ petition was dismissed, the appellants’ houses were allegedly demolished, leaving them without shelter. Four petitioners consequently preferred the present writ appeal.

Whether land losers whose property is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 are entitled to the compensation, R&R benefits, and infrastructural amenities provided under the First, Second, and Third Schedules to the 2013 Act?

Whether the writ petitioners were required to be relegated to the remedy under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act when no award had been made determining their claims under the Second and Third Schedules to the 2013 Act?

Whether the appellants were entitled to approach the competent authority for determination of their R&R claims and for consideration of temporary shelter after demolition of their houses?

The Court applied the National Highways Act, 1956, particularly Section 3G(5), which provides a remedy against an award or determination made under the acquisition process.

It also applied the 2013 Act, including the First, Second, and Third Schedules concerning compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement, and infrastructural amenities, respectively. The Court relied on the Central Government’s order dated 28 August 2015 issued under Section 113(1) of the 2013 Act, extending the relevant benefits under the 2013 Act to acquisitions under enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, including the NH Act at Serial No.7.

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways’ guidelines dated 28 December 2017 likewise clarified that, with effect from 1 January 2015, acquisitions under the NH Act attracted the provisions relating to compensation under the First Schedule, R&R under the Second Schedule, and infrastructural amenities under the Third Schedule.

The Court held that the appellants’ grievance concerned R&R benefits and infrastructural amenities, not the quantum of compensation for their acquired land and structures. In view of the 28 August 2015 order and the applicable Ministry guidelines, land losers under the NH Act were legally entitled to the benefits under the First, Second, and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act.

The rejection of the claim based on the Project Director’s clarification was therefore legally unsustainable, a position fairly conceded by the NHAI’s Standing Counsel. The Court further reasoned that Section 3G(5) would become relevant only after an award had been made in respect of the appellants’ claims under the Second and Third Schedules. Since no such award had been made, relegating the appellants to that statutory remedy was premature and inappropriate. The learned writ court had consequently failed to consider the legal effect of the 2015 order and the 2017 guidelines.

The competent authority was directed to decide the claim in accordance with law within eight weeks of receiving the judgment and the application. The appellants were also permitted to seek temporary shelter pending such determination, which the competent authority was directed to consider in accordance with law. The writ appeal was disposed of without costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.