The Allahabad High Court has clarified that where statutory mechanisms exist for adjudicating compensation claims in land acquisition, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute. The judgment reinforces the principle that petitioners must exhaust alternative remedies before approaching constitutional courts, particularly when administrative frameworks are in place to address grievances.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Hariom Yadav and another, seek compensation for 770 square meters of land measuring Gata No. 97 in Village Rahchiti, Tehsil Shikohabad, District Firozabad, which they allege was acquired for the six-lane National Highway project. They contend that despite the land being utilized by the National Highway Authority of India, no compensation has been paid, and repeated attempts to secure redressal have been ignored.
Key Facts
- The petitioners’ land is located in Gata No. 97, Village Rahchiti, Tehsil Shikohabad, District Firozabad
- A report dated 07.06.2019 (Annexure-4 to the petition) by the District Revenue Official states that 770 sq. m of the petitioners’ land is affected by the National Highway project
- The petitioners previously filed Writ C No. 19545 of 2019 seeking apportionment of compensation in proportion to their share in unpartitioned land
- On 01.07.2019, a Division Bench directed them to file an application under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956
- They subsequently filed Writ C No. 6202 of 2020, reiterating the same grievance
- On 06.01.2022, a co-ordinate Bench directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute on apportionment of compensation to the competent court within one month
- On 08.01.2026, the District Judge, Firozabad, in Misc. No. 50 of 2022, rejected the reference under Section 3-H(4), holding that no acquisition had been formally determined and no dispute over apportionment existed
- The District Judge further held that jurisdiction under Section 3-H(4) arises only after acquisition and compensation are determined by the competent authority under Section 3G of the Act
- The petitioners have not filed any claim under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- The State Government issued Government Order dated 12.05.2016, establishing a District Level Committee to examine claims for adequate compensation where acquisition under the 2013 Act is applicable
Procedural History
- 07.06.2019: District Revenue Official submits report confirming 770 sq. m of petitioners’ land affected by NH project
- 2019: First writ petition filed (Writ C No. 19545 of 2019)
- 01.07.2019: Division Bench directs petitioners to file application under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956
- 2020: Second writ petition filed (Writ C No. 6202 of 2020)
- 06.01.2022: Co-ordinate Bench disposes of petition with direction to refer apportionment dispute to competent court within one month
- 08.01.2026: District Judge, Firozabad, rejects application under Section 3-H(4), holding no acquisition or apportionment dispute exists
- 30.04.2026: Present writ petition (Writ C No. 15404 of 2026) disposed of by Division Bench
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Assert that their land has been physically taken for the National Highway project, compensation has not been paid, and the refusal to refer the matter under Section 3-H(4) is unlawful. They rely on the 07.06.2019 report as proof of acquisition.
Respondents (State and NHAI): Argue that no formal acquisition has been completed under the National Highways Act, 1956, and no compensation has been determined. They contend that the petitioners are attempting to bypass the statutory mechanism under the 2013 Act and the 12.05.2016 Government Order.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for 770 sq. m of land within a stipulated period.
The Legal Issue
Whether the petitioners can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel payment of compensation for land allegedly acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, when a statutory remedy exists under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, and a specific administrative mechanism has been established by the State Government?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri H.R. Mishra, Senior Counsel, argued that the 07.06.2019 report by the District Revenue Official constitutes conclusive evidence of acquisition. He contended that the refusal to recognize the land as acquired and to initiate compensation proceedings violates Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects property rights. He further submitted that the petitioners have exhausted all avenues under the National Highways Act, 1956, and that the District Judge’s rejection of the Section 3-H(4) application was legally unsustainable.
For the Respondent
Sri Ambrish Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, countered that the petitioners have not established that any formal acquisition process under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, has been completed. He emphasized that the State Government’s Government Order dated 12.05.2016 provides a clear, efficacious remedy: claimants may submit applications to the District Level Committee, which is empowered to examine claims and recommend compensation under the 2013 Act. He argued that the petitioners’ repeated resort to writ jurisdiction constitutes an abuse of process and that the courts must defer to the statutory mechanism.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law and with compensation. However, it emphasized that the existence of a constitutional right does not automatically entitle a claimant to bypass statutory remedies.
"The remedy under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, is triggered only after acquisition and determination of compensation by the competent authority. Without such a determination, no dispute over apportionment arises, and the court has no jurisdiction to intervene."
The Court noted that the District Judge’s order dated 08.01.2026 was legally sound: no acquisition had been declared, no compensation had been awarded, and therefore, no dispute over apportionment existed to be referred under Section 3-H(4). The Court further held that the petitioners’ reliance on the 07.06.2019 report was insufficient to establish acquisition, as it was merely a preliminary assessment.
The Court then turned to the Government Order dated 12.05.2016, which explicitly provides for the constitution of a District Level Committee to examine claims for compensation where land has been taken for public purposes, even if formal acquisition under the 2013 Act has not been completed. The Court found this mechanism to be a valid, efficacious, and statutory alternative to writ jurisdiction.
"Where a specific administrative forum has been created by the State to adjudicate claims of this nature, and where the forum is empowered to consider evidence, hear parties, and recommend compensation, the writ court must decline to intervene unless the forum is shown to be manifestly inadequate or biased."
The Court held that the petitioners had not exhausted this remedy and that their repeated petitions before the High Court amounted to forum shopping. It declined to direct payment of compensation directly, as that would usurp the function of the District Level Committee.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the District Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 12.05.2016 within two weeks. If such representation is made, the Committee shall decide the claim expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks. The observations made by the Court are not binding on the Committee, which is directed to examine the claim afresh, including the 07.06.2019 report, without prejudice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Remedies Override Writ Jurisdiction
- Practitioners must first exhaust remedies under statutory frameworks like the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, or state-specific committees before approaching High Courts under Article 226
- Writ petitions filed solely to bypass administrative forums will be dismissed unless the forum is shown to be non-functional or biased
Documentation Must Precede Legal Action
- Preliminary reports or assessments (e.g., revenue department surveys) are not conclusive proof of acquisition
- Formal acquisition under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, or notification under the 2013 Act, is a prerequisite for claiming compensation
- Claimants must submit applications with supporting documents to designated committees, not courts
Administrative Committees Are Legally Valid Forums
- State Government orders establishing District Level Committees for compensation claims are binding and enforceable
- These committees can consider claims even where formal acquisition procedures are incomplete, provided the land is in actual use for public purpose
- Courts will not interfere unless the committee acts arbitrarily or unreasonably
