01Facts
The petitioner’s lands in Ganganapalle village were acquired for NH-216, and compensation was determined by an award dated 31 March 2016.
pp. 5–6Other landowners obtained enhanced compensation from the Arbitrator on 30 March 2026, treating the acquired land as non-agricultural and valuing it at ₹4,500 per square yard.
pp. 5–6The petitioner sought equivalent compensation through the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS).
pp. 5–6The Joint Collector rejected the request on the ground that the petitioner had not applied within the prescribed period.
pp. 5–6The petitioner challenged that endorsement, contending, among other things, that he had not been served with the original award.
pp. 5–6, 10–1102Issues
i.Whether the petitioner could seek re-determination of compensation on the basis of the enhanced award obtained by similarly situated landowners.
pp. 9–11ii.Whether the Joint Collector’s rejection of the petitioner’s PGRS representation on limitation grounds was lawful, and which authority was competent to decide the claim.
pp. 10–1203Law Applied
Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 permits either party dissatisfied with the competent authority’s determination to seek determination by an arbitrator.
pp. 7–10Sections 105(3) and 73 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, read with the 2015 Removal of Difficulties Order, apply the 2013 Act’s compensation provisions to acquisitions under the National Highways Act; Section 73 provides a route for other interested persons whose lands were covered by the same preliminary notification to seek re-determination by reference to an enhanced award, subject to its prescribed period.
pp. 7–10Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304, confirms the application of the 2013 Act’s compensation provisions to National Highways Act acquisitions; the judgment also referred to Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 235, and Ram Darash v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine All 2132.
pp. 8–10The Court further held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not govern the petitioner’s parity-based claim in the circumstances before it, noting that the issue of Article 137’s application to Section 3G(5) proceedings remained pending before the Supreme Court.
pp. 6–7, 11–12Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 137
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 105Section 113Section 73
04Reasoning
The petitioner was not seeking a fresh determination of his original award in isolation; his claim for parity arose when similarly situated landowners obtained enhanced compensation on 30 March 2026.
p. 10He approached the authorities on 11 May 2026, within three months of that enhanced award, and asserted that he had obtained the original award only later under the Right to Information Act.
p. 10The Court therefore found the Joint Collector’s reliance on the 2016 award date and Article 137 misplaced.
pp. 10–12It also held that the Joint Collector was not the authority competent to decide the parity claim: the District Collector was to determine it.
pp. 10–12The PGRS representation should have been forwarded to the competent authority rather than rejected on its merits.
pp. 10–1205Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the endorsement dated 18 May 2026.
p. 13It directed the District Collector to re-determine compensation for the petitioner’s specified lands in accordance with the enhanced award, within four weeks of receiving the order.
p. 13No costs were awarded.
p. 13Original Court PDF
Tadimalla Srimannarayana Prasad Srimannarayana PrasadvsThe Court Of The Ii Addl. Senior Civil Judge
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
