Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the National Highway Authority of India to pay compensation as per a modified award dated 14.08.2017 for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The land was acquired for broadening National Highway no.211, and an initial award was passed on 04.08.2016 -- The petitioners challenged this award through arbitration and also obtained a Corrigendum from the Competent Authority modifying the award -- The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to modify the award after passing it, as it becomes functus officio -- The Court relied on precedent stating that Section 33 of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 does not apply to National Highways Act acquisitions -- The petitioners' remedy is through the pending arbitration proceedings under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the writ petition was found not maintainable
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking enforcement of a modified award for compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The petitioners, landowners, had their land acquired for broadening National Highway no.211, and an initial award was passed on 04.08.2016 under Section 3-G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The petitioners challenged this award through arbitration under Section 3-G(5) and also obtained a Corrigendum dated 14.08.2017 from the Competent Authority modifying the award -- The Court held that once an award is passed, the Competent Authority becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to modify it, as established in Bhupendrasingh Sardarsingh Parmar v. Competent Authority for National Highway and others (2020) -- The Court further ruled that Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The petitioners' remedy lies in the pending arbitration proceedings, and the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to modify the award dated 04.08.2016 by issuing a Corrigendum dated 14.08.2017 under the National Highways Act, 1956, and whether the petitioners are entitled to enforcement of this modified award through a writ petition
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to modify the award after passing it, as it becomes functus officio -- The Court ruled that the petitioners' remedy lies in the pending arbitration proceedings under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the writ petition was not maintainable
Law Points
- The Competent Authority under the National Highways Act
- 1956 becomes functus officio after passing an award and cannot modify it
- The provisions of Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 do not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act
- 1956
- The remedy for grievances regarding compensation determination under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act
- 1956 is through arbitration under Section 3-G(5)
- A writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be issued to enforce an award passed without jurisdiction
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 79
Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2021
Arun R. Pedneker J. , Vaishali Patil-Jadhav J.
Mr. A.B. Kale, Mr. A.V. Lavte, Mr. D.S. Manorkar, Mr. U.B. Bondar
Keshav S/o Rajaram Khairnar, Sandesh S/o Suresh Khairnar, Rahul S/o Kishor Agrawal, Sou. Seema W/o Rahul Agrawal, Rohit S/o Kishor Agrawal, Kuntal S/o Rohit Agrawal
The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Dhule, National Highway Authority of India/ Project Director (Ministry of Road Transport and Highway Government of India), Competent Authority, National Highway no.211 and Deputy Collector Land Acquisition no.1, Dhule
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking enforcement of a modified compensation award for land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956
Remedy Sought
The petitioners are asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.2 (National Highway Authority of India) to pay Rs.18,34,221/- as per the modified award dated 14.08.2017
Filing Reason
The petitioners filed the petition because respondent no.2 failed to deposit the compensation amount as required under Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 after the Competent Authority issued a Corrigendum modifying the initial award
Previous Decisions
An initial award was passed on 04.08.2016 under Section 3-G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The petitioners challenged this award by filing an arbitration petition under Section 3-G(5) -- The Competent Authority issued a Corrigendum dated 14.08.2017 modifying the award
Issues
Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to modify the award dated 04.08.2016 by issuing the Corrigendum dated 14.08.2017 under the National Highways Act, 1956
Whether the petitioners are entitled to enforcement of the modified award through a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Corrigendum dated 14.08.2017 only corrected the earlier award and did not constitute a fresh award, and respondent no.2 should have deposited the amount as per Section 3-H
Respondent no.2 argued that the Competent Authority becomes functus officio after passing an award and lacks jurisdiction to modify it, citing Bhupendrasingh Sardarsingh Parmar v. Competent Authority for National Highway and others (2020)
Ratio Decidendi
Once an award is passed by the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Authority becomes functus officio and cannot modify it -- Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The proper remedy for grievances regarding compensation determination is through arbitration under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956
Judgment Excerpts
The Court held that 'once the award has been passed by the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority loses any authority to tinker with it in any manner whatsoever' (Para 9)
The Court stated that 'the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 2013 would not be applicable to acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956' (Para 9)
Procedural History
The land acquisition was initiated with a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 on 04.09.2013 -- An award was passed under Section 3-G(1) on 04.08.2016 -- The petitioners filed an arbitration petition under Section 3-G(5) challenging the award -- The Competent Authority issued a Corrigendum dated 14.08.2017 modifying the award -- The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3260 of 2021 seeking enforcement of the modified award -- The High Court heard the petition and dismissed it on 09.02.2026
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3A, Section 3-G(1), Section 3-G(2), Section 3-G(5), Section 3-H
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 33
