Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, T. Younis @ Unees, a landowner, challenged two endorsements dated 20.05.2022 and 20.09.2022 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer & Competent Authority, National Highway Authority of India (first respondent). The endorsements informed the petitioner that payment of compensation for his acquired lands in Sy.Nos.503/A2 and 503/B2 of Amaravati Village, Hospet Taluk could not be made because there was a dispute regarding title to the property. The petitioner had purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 18.05.2015, and the land was acquired for the purpose of National Highway No.13. The petitioner contended that the Competent Authority had no jurisdiction to decide title disputes and that the compensation ought to be paid to him or deposited before the court. The respondents argued that the title dispute was pending before the civil court and that the petitioner was not the owner. The Court analyzed Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides that if there is any dispute as to the apportionment of compensation or as to the persons entitled to it, the Competent Authority shall refer the dispute to the court and deposit the compensation amount. The Court held that the Competent Authority cannot refuse to pay compensation altogether; it must either pay the person found entitled or deposit the amount before the court. The impugned endorsements were quashed, and the Competent Authority was directed to either pay compensation to the petitioner or deposit it before the jurisdictional court within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Withholding Payment - Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956 - The Competent Authority refused to pay compensation to the landowner citing a title dispute. The Court held that once the land vests in the National Highway Authority, the Competent Authority cannot withhold compensation; it must either pay the person entitled or deposit the amount before the court under Section 3G(5) of the Act. The endorsements denying payment were quashed. (Paras 1-8) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India - The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the impugned endorsements issued by the Competent Authority, as they were based on an erroneous interpretation of law and caused injustice to the petitioner. (Paras 1, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Competent Authority can refuse to pay compensation to the landowner on the ground that there is a dispute regarding title to the acquired land, after the land has vested in the National Highway Authority of India.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned endorsements dated 20.05.2022 and 20.09.2022 quashed. Competent Authority directed to either pay compensation to petitioner or deposit it before jurisdictional court within four weeks.
Law Points
- Land acquisition compensation cannot be withheld due to title dispute after vesting
- Competent Authority must deposit disputed amount before court under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act
- 1956
- Writ of certiorari lies against erroneous administrative endorsements
