No National Highways Act compensation arises for Government land outside the notified acquisition area.

The petitioner claimed possession of land situated at Government Dag No. 194, Revenue Village Gotaimari, Mouza Silabandha, Naduar Revenue Circle, Sonitpur, Assam, where he had constructed a house and other structures/zirats.

He alleged that the respondent authorities had surveyed and acquired the structures for the project involving construction of the Jia Bharali Bridge, its approaches, and river-training works under the National Highways Act, 1956 (“the Act”), and had required him to submit forms for receiving compensation.

The respondents stated that land acquisition for the project covered 151.463 hectares, with the Additional District Commissioner, Sonitpur appointed as the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition.

They specifically contended that no portion of Government Dag No. 194 was included in any notification under Sections 3A or 3D because it did not fall within the project’s Right of Way and was not affected by the project.

The Court applied the land-acquisition framework under the National Highways Act, 1956, particularly Sections 3A and 3D, under which only land brought within the notified acquisition process and subsequently declared to be acquired can attract compensation under the Act.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that occupation of Government land does not confer ownership rights and that an occupant may, at the highest, claim compensation for eligible structures or “zirat” where the occupation is actually affected by the acquisition; mere occupation or prior survey, without inclusion of the land or structures in the acquisition process, does not establish a statutory right to compensation.

The Court found that Government Dag No. 194 was not included in any notification issued under Sections 3A or 3D of the Act.

The respondents’ evidence showed that the plot occupied by the petitioner did not fall within the project’s Right of Way and was not affected by the construction project.

Although the petitioner asserted that his house and structures had been surveyed, he did not establish that they were acquired, demolished, or otherwise affected through the statutory acquisition process.

The beneficiary list also did not demonstrate that any similarly situated person possessing land in Government Dag No. 194 had received compensation.

Accordingly, the absence of statutory acquisition or project-related interference defeated the petitioner’s claim for compensation under the Act.

The writ petition was therefore dismissed on merits, with no order as to costs.