#National Highways Act

The Supreme Court ruled that for National Highways Act acquisitions, solatium and interest are payable but must be calculated under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act when the Competent Authority's award pre-dates 1 January 2015 - the date the 2013 RFCTLARR Act was extended to highway projects. The 2013 Act's enhanced compensation regime does not apply retrospectively to finalised awards, directly impacting landowners with pre-2015 awards.

The Delhi High Court struck down NHAI’s two-year debarment of SAI Consulting, ruling that blacklisting is an extraordinary sanction that can be imposed only after showing serious misconduct and affording a fair hearing. The decision limits agencies to use debarment proportionately, protecting contractors from punitive bans for mere contractual lapses.

Karnataka High Court ruled that the 30-day window to move a Section 33 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned, even in statutory arbitrations under the National Highways Act. It also clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such arbitrations. The decision tightens timelines for government-linked infrastructure disputes.

Punjab & Haryana HC orders NHAI to pay compensation for 9.33 marlas of land used for NH-64 widening despite exclusion from the original award, holding that unnotified use for public purpose mandates payment under the Act.

Bombay High Court rules that land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for service roads and public amenities must be fully compensated, rejecting the State’s exemption claim. The judgment reinforces landowners' rights against arbitrary deductions in acquisition cases.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that courts cannot interfere with the National Highways Authority of India’s (NHAI) policy decisions on highway alignment if statutory procedures, including Section 3D notifications, are complied with. The judgment reinforces the limited scope of judicial review in administrative law, emphasizing that objections raised post-notification do not invalidate expert-driven policy choices.

The Supreme Court ruled that compensation for industrial land under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 must be determined using comparable industrial sales or stamp duty rates, not residential sale deeds. This decision clarifies market value determination for industrial acquisitions, impacting landowners and acquiring authorities.

Allahabad HC reaffirms that landowners must exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act before approaching writ courts for compensation disputes. The ruling underscores that bypassing the District Level Committee under the 2016 Government Order constitutes an abuse of judicial process, binding stakeholders to the prescribed administrative mechanism.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that NHAI cannot circumvent the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by issuing internal letters to review arbitral awards under the National Highways Act. The court emphasizes that statutory remedies under Section 34 must be exhausted, reinforcing the finality of arbitration awards in land acquisition disputes involving government bodies.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a defective land acquisition notification lacking precise land description does not automatically invalidate the entire process, but mandates compensation based on market value at the date of possession and equal treatment with similarly situated landowners, as demonstrated by the Rs. 4,240/sq.m. rate paid to neighboring plots. This sets a critical precedent for equitable compensation in flawed acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that even when revenue records are corrected, disputes over compensation under the National Highways Act must be resolved solely by the Competent Authority under Section 3H(4). This reinforces the statutory exclusivity of administrative remedies and bars petitioners from bypassing them via writ petitions, affecting thousands of landowners awaiting delayed payouts.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that in statutory arbitrations under the National Highways Act, 1956, the seat for challenging an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is the place where the award is rendered - not the land acquisition site or revenue district. This clarifies territorial jurisdiction for highway land acquisition disputes, ensuring petitioners file challenges only in courts where the award was issued, preventing forum shopping and procedural confusion.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that under Section 3A(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, a brief description of the proposed acquisition is sufficient-physical attachment of the plan is not mandatory as long as it is available for public inspection. This lowers administrative burdens on NHAI and state agencies while preserving landowners' right to inspect plans, reinforcing procedural fairness in highway acquisition.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that statutory interest under the National Highways Act is payable from the date of possession, irrespective of omissions in the award or NHAI’s administrative delays. The judgment reinforces that landowners are entitled to timely compensation, and public authorities cannot evade liability due to internal procedural failures.

The J&K and Ladakh High Court has ruled that under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, authorities cannot disburse land acquisition compensation until a civil court determines the rightful ownership shares among co-heirs. This binds revenue and acquisition officials to defer payment in disputed inheritance cases, reinforcing procedural fairness and preventing unilateral appropriation of shared property rights.