Once land is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, and vests absolutely in the Government, the acquiring authority cannot escape its obligation to pay full compensation merely because the land was not physically used for the project. The Gauhati High Court has firmly upheld this principle, reinforcing that statutory vesting is irrevocable and compensation is not contingent on actual utilization.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The writ petitioner, Sh T.Zahluta, owned land covered by Periodic Patta No. 62/2004 in Serchhip, Mizoram, which was notified for acquisition under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956. A declaration under Section 3D(2) was issued on 10 October 2018, vesting the land absolutely in the Central Government. Despite this, the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) awarded compensation for crops and solatium but omitted land value compensation for the petitioner’s land, while granting it to other landowners with similar Periodic Pattas.
Procedural History
- 25 July 2018: Notification under Section 3A(1) issued, including petitioner’s land.
- 10 October 2018: Declaration under Section 3D(2) published; land vested absolutely in the Central Government.
- 7 March 2019: CALA issued Award under Section 3G; petitioner excluded from land value compensation.
- 29 August 2019: Possession taken under Section 3E(1).
- 8 May 2023: Petitioner filed RTI seeking clarification on exclusion.
- 22 June 2023: CALA admitted clerical error in omitting land value compensation.
- 5 September 2023: NHIDCL claimed land was no longer required.
- 16 November 2023: Single Judge directed CALA to assess and pay full land compensation.
- 30 January 2026: Gauhati High Court dismissed NHIDCL’s writ appeal.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the CALA to assess and pay full land value compensation, including solatium, under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, and to direct NHIDCL to deposit the amount.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether compensation for land value can be denied to a landowner under the National Highways Act, 1956, after the land has vested absolutely in the Government under Section 3D(2), even if the acquiring authority later claims the land was not physically used for the project.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
NHIDCL contended that since the constructed road did not touch or utilize the petitioner’s land, there was no need for acquisition. It argued that the land should be returned to the petitioner and no compensation for land value was due. It relied on the letter dated 5 September 2023 asserting non-requirement and sought remand to allow filing of an affidavit-in-opposition, claiming procedural unfairness.
For the Respondent
The petitioner and CALA countered that the land had already vested absolutely under Section 3D(2), possession had been taken under Section 3E(1), and compensation for crops had been paid. The RTI reply confirmed the omission was a clerical error. Counsel cited V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, and Sukh Dev v. Union of India to establish that vested land cannot be divested, regardless of non-use.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Sections 3D, 3E, and 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. It emphasized that vesting under Section 3D(2) is absolute and free from all encumbrances, a principle consistently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court rejected NHIDCL’s argument that non-use negates liability, noting that the Act does not permit withdrawal or divestment after possession is taken.
"The said land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure-holders/persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose either."
The Court relied on V. Chandrasekaran (2012) to affirm that vesting extinguishes prior rights and creates an unconditional ownership in the State. It further cited Indore Development Authority (2020) to clarify that the term "vested" means a fixed, absolute right, not contingent on future use. The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Sukh Dev reinforced that once possession is taken and award is passed, divestment is legally impermissible.
The Court found the RTI reply admitting a clerical error compelling. It held that denying compensation to the petitioner while paying others with identical Periodic Pattas violated the principle of equality under Article 14. The failure of NHIDCL to file an affidavit-in-opposition despite three extended opportunities did not invalidate the Single Judge’s order, as the facts were undisputed and the legal position was settled.
The Verdict
The writ appeal was dismissed. The Court held that once land vests absolutely under Section 3D(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, compensation for land value must be paid regardless of whether the land is physically used. The petitioner is entitled to full compensation, including solatium, as assessed by CALA.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Vesting Is Irrevocable
- Practitioners must argue that vesting under Section 3D(2) extinguishes all prior rights and creates an absolute, non-revocable title in the State.
- Any claim of "non-use" or "no longer required" after possession is taken is legally untenable.
- Landowners can invoke V. Chandrasekaran and Indore Development Authority to resist attempts to avoid compensation.
Clerical Errors Cannot Justify Denial of Statutory Rights
- If an RTI reply or official record confirms a clerical omission in compensation, the burden shifts to the authority to rectify the error.
- Courts will not permit procedural delays or technicalities to override substantive rights when the underlying facts are clear.
- Practitioners should immediately file RTIs in land acquisition cases to document discrepancies and create admissible evidence.
Compensation Must Be Uniform for Identical Holdings
- Landowners with identical documentation (e.g., Periodic Pattas) must be treated equally.
- Differential treatment without objective justification violates Article 14 and may be challenged as arbitrary.
- Authorities cannot selectively apply compensation standards based on convenience or administrative oversight.
