Land Acquisition – Compensation – Constitutional Safeguards for Private Property Rights

The High Court held that the additional land was indeed taken without legal authority and no compensation was paid, making the acquisition unlawful. The Court directed the respondents to initiate proper acquisition proceedings and ensure fair compensation.

The Court emphasized the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A and ruled that the state cannot evade its legal responsibility of fair compensation by citing delay or procedural lapses. The Court underscored that the deprivation of property without due process is impermissible.

Relevant Acts and Sections:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue writs

2. National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3A – Notification for acquisition of land

3. National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3H – Deposit and disbursement of compensation

Subjects: Land Acquisition – Compensation – Private Property Rights – Writ Jurisdiction – Possession Without Authority – Due Process

Nature of the Litigation: A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the unauthorized acquisition of additional land and the failure to compensate the petitioners.

Petitioner’s Demand: The petitioners sought compensation for an additional area of 8350 sq.mtrs. acquired without legal sanction and without payment of any compensation.

Reason for Filing the Case: The petitioners contended that while only 2250 sq.mtrs. of their land had been legally acquired and compensated, possession of an additional 8350 sq.mtrs. was taken without following the due process of law.

Prior Decisions: No formal acquisition proceedings or compensation awards had been completed for the additional land.

Issues:

a) Whether the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) lawfully acquired the additional 8350 sq.mtrs. of land. b) Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the unauthorized acquisition of their land.

Submissions/Arguments: Petitioners: Asserted that possession of their land was taken without the authority of law and no compensation was paid despite multiple notifications and proposals. NHAI: Claimed that the additional land was part of an existing highway and no fresh acquisition was required.