Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Mechanical Rejection of Rehabilitation Claims Under National Highways Act. The Court held that the provisions of the First, Second, and Third Schedules of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apply to land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, and the Competent Authority must individually assess each claimant's entitlement to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits.

Writ petitions challenging mechanical rejection of claims for rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the 2013 Act in land acquisition proceedings under the NH Act.

Petitioners sought directions to the Competent Authority to apply the provisions of the First, Second, and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act to their land acquisitions under the NH Act and to grant them the corresponding benefits.

The Competent Authority rejected the petitioners' requests for rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements under the Second Schedule of the 2013 Act in a mechanical manner, relying on a Manual of Guidelines instead of objectively applying the substantive provisions of the 2013 Act.

Whether the provisions of the First, Second, and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act apply to land acquisition under the NH Act. Whether the Competent Authority under the NH Act must individually assess each claimant's entitlement to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Second Schedule of the 2013 Act.

Petitioners argued that the 2015 Removal of Difficulties Order and the 2017 Notification make it clear that the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act apply to NH Act acquisitions, and the Competent Authority must apply its mind to the facts of each case. Respondents opposed the petitions, but the Court found that the law clearly supports the petitioners' position.

The provisions of the First, Second, and Third Schedules of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apply to land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, by virtue of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015 and the 2017 Notification. The Competent Authority must individually assess each claimant's entitlement to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Second Schedule, rather than mechanically rejecting claims based on guidelines.

This is a batch of Writ Petitions that involve a singular and common question of law – whether, and how, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) would apply to determination of compensation, provision of rehabilitation and resettlement and making available infrastructure amenities in cases of land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 (“NH Act”). The case of the Petitioners is that while the law is clear that the entitlements to rehabilitation and resettlement under the Second Schedule of the 2013 Act would be available over and above the monetary compensation under the First Schedule of the 2013 Act even to cases of land acquisition under the NH Act, their grievance is that their requests for entitlements under the Second Schedule have been rejected in a mechanical manner, purporting to reply on a Manual of Guidelines, instead of an objective application of the substantive provisions of the relevant schedules of the 2013 Act to the facts relating to the Petitioners requests.

The writ petitions were filed in 2022 and 2024 challenging the rejection of claims for rehabilitation and resettlement benefits. The Court heard the matters on September 29, 2024, and pronounced judgment on October 25, 2024.

• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 105(1), Section 105(3), Section 113, First Schedule, Second Schedule, Third Schedule, Fourth Schedule
• National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3