Competent Authority Can Examine Claims Of Rehabilitation & Resettlement Under National Highways Act, Not Collector: Allahabad High Court
While differing from the earlier judgment of the co-ordinate bench in Ranvir Singh And 35 Others v. National Highway Authority Of India And Competent Authority For Land Acquisition And 2 Others, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is not the Collector but the Competent Authority who has to decide claims regarding rehabilitation and resettlement and declare award for land acquired...
While differing from the earlier judgment of the co-ordinate bench in Ranvir Singh And 35 Others v. National Highway Authority Of India And Competent Authority For Land Acquisition And 2 Others, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is not the Collector but the Competent Authority who has to decide claims regarding rehabilitation and resettlement and declare award for land acquired under Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held,
“We notice that in Ranvir Singh (supra), the issue was whether the provisions of rehabilitation and resettlement under the Act, 2013 would apply to the acquisitions made under the NH Act or not. The ratio of the judgment in Ranvir Singh (supra) is binding on this Court and not the directions issued in the operative part of the said order as the same is not the ratio decidendi of the said case. Therefore, we have no hesitation in issuing direction in the instant case to the competent authority as defined in Section 3(a) of the NH Act to examine the claim relating to rehabilitation and resettlement and declare award accordingly.”
In Ranvir Singh And 35 Others v. National Highway Authority Of India And Competent Authority For Land Acquisition And 2 Others, a coordinate bench of the Allahabad High Court had held that provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 will apply to the acquisitions made under the National Highways Act, 1956. It had also held that NHAI may submit proposal for rehabilitation and resettlement award before the Collector who may pass an award under Section 31 of the Act of 2013.
Petitioners, herein, approached the Court seeking rehabilitation and resettlement award in terms of the Acts for their acquired land. Counsel for NHAI argued that the only competent authority could pass such award and not the collector. It was pointed out that the judgment in Ranvir Singh had been challenged before the Supreme Court and notice had been issued on this limited aspect.
Finding force in her submission, the Court held that “it would be the competent authority, as defined under Section 3(a) of NH Act, which would be empowered to examine the claims pertaining to rehabilitation and resettlement and make award accordingly and not the Collector of the district.”
Noting that large number of cases for declaration of award were coming before the Court, it directed the Central Government to clarify the legal position by issuing a circular in this regard to reduce the petitions being filed before the Court for passing of awards.
Case Title: Rajendra Singh And 5 Others v. National Highway Authority Of India And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 287 [WRIT - C No. - 18100 of 2025]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 287
Counsel for Petitioner: Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Samsad Ahmed Khan
Counsel for Respondent: Sushmita Mukherjee