The Allahabad High Court has ruled that land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, cannot be returned to the original tenure holders even if it is alleged that the land remains unutilized. The Court held that once land vests under the Act, there is no statutory provision for its return. However, the Court directed the authorities to ensure immediate disbursement of compensation if it remains unpaid.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi passed this order while disposing of a writ petition filed by Ameer Ahmad and others.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction for the return of their land. The land had been acquired by the government for the purpose of National Highway 87 (Rampur to Kathgodam).
The primary grievance of the petitioners was that the acquired land had not been utilized for the construction of the highway and, therefore, should be returned to them.
Arguments of the Parties
Contentions of the Petitioners: Appearing for the petitioners, Sri Mahavir Prasad, holding the brief of Sri Najakat Ali, argued that the unutilized land deserved to be returned to the tenure holder. He submitted that “in view of the opinion expressed by the District Magistrate the land was bound to be recorded as was not utilized for the purpose it was acquired.”
Contentions of the Respondents (NHAI): Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), opposed the petition. He presented the following legal and factual arguments:
- Statutory Vesting: He argued that once land is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, it stands vested in the government under Section 3D(2) of the said Act.
- No Provision for Return: He submitted that “there is no provision on the statute which empowers the tenure holders to get back his land even if it is not utilized.”
- Special Act Prevails: It was argued that the general laws regarding land acquisition or resumption would not apply to a special acquisition under a Special Act like the National Highways Act.
- Utilization Scope: Refuting the claim that the land was unutilized, Sri Mehrotra contended that “the land is not necessarily utilized only for the purpose of constructing the highways but also for developing utilities sideways as well and also to lay down service lane and drainage.” He termed the petitioner’s argument regarding non-utilization as “highly misplaced.”
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners raised an additional point, submitting that “no compensation has been awarded to the petitioner till date.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After hearing the parties, the High Court accepted the legal position presented by the NHAI regarding the return of land but took serious note of the non-payment of compensation.
The Bench held:
“In the circumstances therefore, while we decline to grant relief in the nature of mandamus to the petitioner to get back his land acquired under the National Highways Act but we still provide that in the event petitioner has not been disbursed with the compensation under the award against the acquisition under the National Highways Act. 1956, the respondent no. 6 will take immediate steps to ensure that compensation stands paid to the petitioner under the award as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”
The Court disposed of the petition with the direction to Respondent No. 6 to ensure the payment of compensation within the stipulated timeline.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ameer Ahmad And 2 Others Versus Union Of India And 5 Others
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 23117 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi
- Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Najakat Ali, Sri Mahavir Prasad
- Counsel for Respondents: A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Pranjal Mehrotra
