The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the National Highways Authority of India to disburse compensation for 9.33 marlas of land utilized for NH-64 widening, despite the land not being reflected in the original acquisition award under the National Highways Act, 1956.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Lakhvir Singh Chahal, owned 9.33 marlas of land forming part of Khewat No. 109/96 min, Khatoni No. 231, Khasra No. 2156/3 (0-14) situated in Village Dhanaula, District Barnala. The land was allegedly acquired for the public purpose of building, widening, four-laning, maintenance, management, and operation of National Highway No. 64 on the stretch from Km. 50.700 to Km. 209.500 (Patiala-Bathinda) of Barnala Section.
Key Facts
- 25.05.2012: Notification issued under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquisition of land for NH-64.
- 03.05.2013: Follow-up notification issued under the 1956 Act.
- 20.01.2014: Award passed under Section 3-G of the 1956 Act by the LAC-cum-SDM, Barnala, but the petitioner’s land was not reflected in the award.
- 2021: The stretch of the State Highway was transferred from PWD B&R, Punjab, to NHAI.
- 07.11.2025: Demarcation report confirmed that 9.33 marlas of the petitioner’s land had been utilized for the public purpose. The demarcation was conducted in the presence of the petitioner, NHAI PIU Bathinda representatives, and revenue officials.
- The petitioner made repeated representations to the respondents for demarcation and compensation, but no action was taken.
Procedural History
- 27.05.2026: High Court passed an interim order noting NHAI’s undertaking to release compensation within 06 weeks, with a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on the Project Director, NHAI PIU Bathinda, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, RO Chandigarh, in case of non-compliance.
- 27.07.2026: Final disposal of the writ petition (CWP-26356-2024).
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Contended that the land was acquired and utilized but not compensated, seeking release of compensation as per statutory benefits and interest.
- NHAI (Respondent No. 2 and 3): Admitted utilization of the land but disputed the quantum of compensation. NHAI offered to pay compensation treating the land as agricultural, while the petitioner claimed it as non-agricultural.
- State (Respondent No. 1): Submitted that NHAI had conceded the acquisition and utilization of the land but not its inclusion in the notifications under the 1956 Act.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the release of compensation for the utilized land, along with statutory benefits and interest.
The Legal Issue
The core question was whether NHAI could be directed to pay compensation for land utilized for a public purpose under the National Highways Act, 1956, despite the land not being explicitly covered in the original acquisition award or subsequent notifications.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The land was acquired and utilized for NH-64 widening but was excluded from the award dated 20.01.2014.
- Despite repeated representations, no demarcation or compensation was provided.
- The petitioner was entitled to compensation as per statutory provisions, including interest and other benefits.
For the Respondent (NHAI)
- The land was acquired vide the award dated 20.01.2014, and notifications under Section 3-A were issued on 25.05.2012 and 03.05.2013.
- NHAI admitted liability for the land but disputed the quantum, offering to pay compensation for agricultural land.
- The Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the quantum of compensation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while the land was acquired for a public purpose, it was not reflected in the original award or subsequent notifications under the National Highways Act, 1956. Despite this, the demarcation report dated 07.11.2025 confirmed the utilization of the petitioner’s land.
"In the present case, it is not in dispute that certain land was acquired for the aforementioned public purpose by PWD B&R, Punjab, however, the said part of the State Highway was transferred to the NHAI in the year 2021. Further, though a period of more than 06 months has elapsed from the date of the demarcation report, yet no concrete effort has been made on the part of respondent NHAI to release the amount of compensation in favour of the petitioner."
The Court noted that NHAI had conceded the acquisition and utilization of the land but failed to initiate the compensation process. It clarified that while it could not determine the quantum of compensation, the State or NHAI could either:
- Release the amount as per the petitioner’s claim and pursue the matter with NHAI, or
- Pass an order after associating NHAI to determine the nature of the land and the compensation amount in accordance with statutory provisions.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- NHAI was directed to release the compensation to the petitioner within 06 weeks from 27.07.2026, along with all statutory benefits and interest.
- If NHAI failed to comply, the Project Director, NHAI PIU Bathinda, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, RO Chandigarh, would each pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 from their own pockets.
- The State or NHAI was to determine the nature of the land and the compensation amount within 06 months from 27.07.2026, in accordance with statutory provisions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compensation Cannot Be Denied for Unnotified Land Use
- Courts can direct compensation for land utilized for public purposes, even if not explicitly covered in acquisition awards or notifications.
- Delays in compensation disbursement may attract penalties against responsible officials.
Quantum of Compensation Requires Statutory Compliance
- Courts may refrain from determining the quantum of compensation but can direct authorities to comply with statutory provisions.
- Parties must adhere to the procedural framework under the National Highways Act, 1956 for determining compensation.
NHAI’s Liability for Utilized Land
- NHAI cannot evade liability for land utilized for public purposes, even if the land was not part of the original acquisition process.
- Authorities must act promptly to assess and disburse compensation to avoid contempt or penalties.
