Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of galas in Godown L1, challenged NHAI's acquisition of part of the godown for the Vadodara Mumbai Expressway under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- They invoked Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, claiming a right to have the whole building acquired if part is taken -- NHAI argued that Section 94 did not apply due to Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which exempts acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The High Court examined the chronology, including the land acquisition award dated 24.11.2023 and a report from IIT Bombay on structural stability -- The Court held that the petitioners' claim under Section 94 was not maintainable, as the acquisition was governed by the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 was upheld
Headnote
The petitioners, owners of galas in Godown L1 at Village Bhoirgaon, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) -- They sought to quash the letter dated 15.11.2025 from the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and demanded acquisition of the remaining portion of Godown L1 -- The respondent NHAI contended that Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was not applicable due to Section 105, which excludes acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The High Court, after hearing arguments, reserved judgment on February 03, 2026 and pronounced it on February 24, 2026 -- The Court held that the petitioners could not rely on Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 as the acquisition was governed by the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The petition was dismissed, upholding NHAI's actions and the impugned letter
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the petitioners could invoke Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to challenge the acquisition of part of Godown L1 under the National Highways Act, 1956, and whether the impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 by NHAI should be quashed
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is not applicable to the acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 by NHAI was upheld, and no relief was granted to the petitioners
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) -- Application of Section 105 of RFCTLARR Act
- 2013 to acquisitions under the National Highways Act
- 1956 -- Constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India -- Procedural requirements under the National Highways Act
- 1956 including Section 3-G
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 122
Writ Petition No.16191 of 2025
Manish Pitale, Shreeram V. Shirsat
Mr. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (through VC) a/w. Mr. Shreyas Deshpande and Mr. Sandeep Rebari i/b. Mr. Shreyas Deshpande for Petitioners, Ms. Vaishali Choudhary a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Ms. Shazia Ansari for Respondent No.1 - Union of India, Mr. Anil Singh, ASG s/w. Mr. Ravi Kini, Mr. Rakesh L. Singh, Mr. Dhaval and Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.2 - NHAI, Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - State
Anirudha Manohar Khopade and others
Union of India, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), State of Maharashtra through Collector Thane, Competent Authority of the State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging land acquisition for the Vadodara Mumbai Expressway
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the letter dated 15.11.2025 from NHAI and demanded acquisition of the remaining portion of Godown L1 under Section 94 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed ignorance of acquisition proceedings and invoked Section 94 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 after becoming aware of demolition activities and the impugned letter from NHAI
Previous Decisions
Land acquisition award dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956; interim order by High Court on 11.12.2025 directing NHAI not to take coercive measures
Issues
Whether Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956
Whether the petitioners, as owners of galas in Godown L1, have a right to claim acquisition of the whole building under Section 94 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Section 94 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 entitles them to have the whole of Godown L1 acquired if part is taken, based on their ownership of galas
NHAI contended that Section 94 does not apply due to Section 105 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which excludes acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956, and that the petitioners are merely owners of independent galas without standing under Section 94
Ratio Decidendi
Acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 are governed by its own provisions and are excluded from the application of Section 94 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 by virtue of Section 105 thereof -- Petitioners, as owners of independent galas, cannot invoke Section 94 to claim acquisition of the whole building when only part is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners have invoked Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to claim that the impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 - NHAI deserves to be quashed
The respondent - NHAI contends that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is not available to the petitioners in terms of Section 105 thereof, as acquisitions undertaken as per the National Highways Act, 1956 are not covered under the provisions of the Act of 2013
The petitioners claim that during this process, they came across the impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 - NHAI through its Project Director, asserting that a report given by the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay demonstrated that dismantling part of Godown L1 would not affect the overall structural stability
Procedural History
Petitioners filed writ petition in November 2025 -- High Court heard contentions on 11.12.2025 and granted opportunity for reply affidavits, with NHAI agreeing not to take coercive measures -- NHAI filed reply affidavit on 24.11.2023 award and IIT Bombay report -- Petitioners filed rejoinder -- NHAI filed additional affidavit on inapplicability of Section 94 -- Court reserved judgment on 03.02.2026 and pronounced on 24.02.2026
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 94, Section 105, Section 3(f)
- National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3-G
- Constitution of India: Article 300-A
