The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking recovery of compensation from unauthorized persons who allegedly purchased land after a notification under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, ruled that the court cannot direct fresh payment of compensation when payments have already been made under legally recognized procedures.
Background of the Case
The PIL (Case No. WPIL 2365/2024) was filed by petitioners Khem Chand and another, represented by advocates Anil Kumar Dubey and Prabha Shanker Pandey. The petition alleged that unauthorized individuals acquired land after the government issued a notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Authority Act, 1956. Despite the legal restrictions, these individuals reportedly received compensation, including an enhanced amount after arbitral proceedings.
The petition sought a direction from the court to recover these funds from unauthorized recipients and redirect them to the original farmers.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The case raised key legal issues regarding:
1. The legality of land transactions after a government notification under the National Highways Act.
2. The entitlement of compensation in cases where landowners have transferred their land post-notification.
3. Whether the court can order repayment of compensation when an FIR had already been lodged in 2017.
Upon examining the records, the High Court noted that complaints had been raised in 2017, leading to an FIR, but the petitioners failed to present any information about its outcome. The petitioners also filed a representation only in March 2024, nearly seven years later, without providing a justification for the delay.
Court’s Decision
Dismissing the petition, the court emphasized that compensation had already been paid to individuals recorded as Khatedars (landholders), regardless of whether they were legal transferees. The Development Authority had acted based on awards and arbitral decisions, and there was no justification for ordering a second compensation payment to farmers who had already transferred their land.
Key observation of the court:
“Once proceedings have taken place and an FIR has been registered, the filing of this petition, after seven years, lacks merit. Payment has already been made under due process, and directing fresh compensation would be legally untenable.”
The court also expressed skepticism regarding the sudden filing of the PIL and remarked that it was unclear “under whose instructions the petitioners have filed the petition.” Given the absence of new evidence and the petition’s delay, the court refused to interfere in the matter.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Anil Kumar Dubey and Prabha Shanker Pandey, while the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents were represented by Advocates Seema Agarwal (Standing Counsel) and Pranjal Mehrotra.
