Road widening on private land requires factual demarcation followed by legal acquisition and payment of compensation.

The petitioner, a farmer and recorded owner of lands under Khasra Nos. 286, 290, 190/1, 61, and 109/1 in Village Sukalipali, alleged that the State authorities utilized portions of his land for the widening of the Sakarra–Bhothiya road.

The petitioner claimed that no formal acquisition proceedings were initiated nor was any compensation paid despite multiple representations submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and the Collector in 2016.

The petitioner sought a stay on construction and a direction for compensation under the 2013 Act.

The State contended that the work was for public purpose and that the claim involved disputed questions of fact regarding the actual utilization of the petitioner's specific land.

1. Whether the respondent authorities utilized the petitioner’s private land for road widening without following the due process of law and payment of compensation.

2. Whether the court can adjudicate the claim for compensation when the extent of land utilization is a disputed question of fact.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which mandates a statutory procedure for land acquisition and the payment of fair compensation.

Principle of Due Process of Law, asserting that the State cannot deprive a citizen of property rights in an arbitrary or high-handed manner without adhering to established legal frameworks.

Procedural principle that disputed questions of fact regarding land boundaries require factual determination/demarcation by competent revenue authorities before a claim for compensation can be finalized.

The Court observed that while the petitioner alleged forced utilization of his property, the State raised a primary defense that the exact extent of land encroachment was a disputed factual matter.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad reasoned that a writ court cannot resolve such factual disputes without a scientific basis.

The Court determined that the proper course of action was to mandate a formal demarcation of the site to ascertain whether the petitioner's Khasra numbers indeed fell within the road-widening area.

The Court linked the right to compensation directly to the outcome of this factual verification: if the demarcation confirms the utilization of private land, the State's action would be deemed "not in accordance with law" unless followed by formal acquisition under the 2013 Act.

The Court ordered that the petitioner be given due notice and the opportunity to participate in the demarcation proceedings.

It held that if the demarcation reveals that the petitioner's land was utilized for the road, the respondents must immediately initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition and payment of compensation strictly in accordance with the law.