Post-Award Claims of Measurement Discrepancies and De Facto Excess Land Acquisition Are Not Maintainable Under Article 226.

The petitioner, an agriculturist, owned land in Village Toli, Navsari (Block No. 498).

Notifications for the acquisition of 767 sq. mtrs. of this land for the Vadodara–Mumbai Expressway were issued in 2014 and 2015.

An award for compensation was declared on 19.03.2020, and the petitioner subsequently sought redetermination of compensation through an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act.

In the arbitral award dated 26.08.2021, the Arbitrator made incidental remarks regarding the possibility of re-measuring land if discrepancies existed.

Following a 2022 DILR measurement report showing a current holding of 2,418 sq. mtrs., the petitioner alleged that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had taken possession of 569 sq. mtrs. in excess of the acquired 767 sq. mtrs.

1. Whether the petitioner can challenge the measurement of acquired land and seek relief for alleged excess possession after the conclusion of acquisition proceedings and receipt of compensation.

2. Whether an Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act has the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the physical measurement or area of land acquired.

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which limits the Arbitrator's jurisdiction to disputes regarding the "determination of the amount" of compensation and does not extend to the correctness of the land measurement itself.

Principle of waiver and laches, noting that land measurement objections must be raised at the survey stage under Section 3B of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Court found the petition "wholly misconceived" and "misleading".

It reasoned that the petitioner remained silent during the statutory objection periods (Sections 3A and 3D) and only raised the measurement issue after receiving compensation in 2020.

The Court sharply criticized the Collector/Arbitrator for including observations about land measurement in the arbitral award, noting that Section 3G(5) is strictly restricted to redetermining the amount of compensation; thus, any comments on area discrepancies were "alien to the controversy".

The Court observed that the 2022 DILR report merely stated the current land area and did not prove that the NHAI was in possession of the alleged "excess" area.

The Court clarified that observations regarding land measurement by an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) are outside their legal mandate and cannot be used as a basis to initiate new proceedings.

No order as to costs was made.