High Court · 2025

With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions in this bunch are disposed of."

4. Mr. J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the N.H.A.I. submits that the direction by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in the aforesaid decision to the Collector to pass rehabilitation and resettlement award is not consistent with the provisions of the NH Act whereunder the competent authority alone is invested with the power to hold enquiry and declare award. She submits that on the said limited aspect, the NHAI has challenged the judgment of this Court in Ranvir Singh (supra) by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 12061/2024 before the Supreme Court and in which following order has been passed on 15.04.2024:- "1. Delay condoned.

2. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Advocate and Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner-National Highway Authority of India and perused the record.

3. According to Mr. Mehta, the present Special Leave Petition has been filed only for a limited purpose of clarification in respect of the observation/direction given in the impugned order passed by the High Court which reads as follows:- "For the above, without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, it is directed that the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 shall prepare a proposal for the rehabilitation and resettlement award for affected families, within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act, 2013, in terms of the entitlements provided in the Second Schedule, with the assistance of the officers of the NHAI and submit the same before the Collector for making award in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the RECTLARR Act, 2013. For preparation of the said proposal, the competent authority shall make necessary enquiry as per the provisions of the Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the RECTLARR Act 2013 a contained in Chapter V of the Act, 2013, i.e. before preparation of the rehabilitation and resettlement award, in relation to the acquisition in question."

4. According to the learned Senior Advocate- Mr. Mehta, the direction to submit the scheme before the Collector for following the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is not consonance with the provisions of NHA, particularly with Section 3 read with Section 3(g) and 3(i) of the NH Act.

5. In view of the above, let notice be issued only for the limited purpose of clarification as sought in the Special Leave Petition, returnable after four weeks.

6. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted."

5. He submits that although she is not opposing the prayer of the petitioners for rendering rehabilitation and resettlement award in terms of the mandate of Act 2013, but the said exercise should be conducted by the competent authority and not by the Collector.

6. Section 23 read with Section 31 of the Act, 2013 empowers the Collector to pass rehabilitation and resettlement award for each affected family in terms of the entitlements provided in the second schedule. Under Section 3(g) of the Act, 2013 the Collector has been defined thus:- "(g)Collector means the Collector of a revenue district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially designated by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act;"

7. It is evident from the definition of Collector that it includes any Officer specially designated by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of the Collector under the said Act.

8. In NH Act, the power to declare award is conferred upon the competent authority under Section 3G. The competent authority has been defined under Section 3(a) of the Act of 1956 as follows:- "(a) "competent authority" means any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification;"

9. It is not disputed that the Central Government had issued notification on 28.08.2015 under Section 105(3) of the Act, 2013 directing that the provisions relating to the second and third schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisitions under the enactments specified in the fourth schedule to the said Act. The effect of said notification is to extend the beneficial provisions of the Act, 2013 to the acquisitions made under the NH Act. However, the machinery provided for holding enquiry and determining compensation does not get altered. The same is still to be done in the manner and by the authority stipulated under the Statutes under which acquisition was done. We, therefore, find force in the submission of learned counsel for NHAI that in matters relating to acquisitions under NH Act, 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.

10. 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. 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.

11. The instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the competent authority to proceed with the exercise of examining the claims pertaining to rehabilitation and resettlement and declare award on the said aspect having regard to the provisions of Chapter V of the Act, 2013 within twelve weeks from the date of the communication of the instant order. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Sachin SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions in this bunch are disposed of."

4. Mr. J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the N.H.A.I. submits that the direction by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in the aforesaid decision to the Collector to pass rehabilitation and resettlement award is not consistent with the provisions of the NH Act whereunder the competent authority alone is invested with the power to hold enquiry and declare award. She submits that on the said limited aspect, the NHAI has challenged the judgment of this Court in Ranvir Singh (supra) by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 12061/2024 before the Supreme Court and in which following order has been passed on 15.04.2024:- "1. Delay condoned.

2. Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Advocate and Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner-National Highway Authority of India and perused the record.

3. According to Mr. Mehta, the present Special Leave Petition has been filed only for a limited purpose of clarification in respect of the observation/direction given in the impugned order passed by the High Court which reads as follows:- "For the above, without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, it is directed that the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 shall prepare a proposal for the rehabilitation and resettlement award for affected families, within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Act, 2013, in terms of the entitlements provided in the Second Schedule, with the assistance of the officers of the NHAI and submit the same before the Collector for making award in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the RECTLARR Act, 2013. For preparation of the said proposal, the competent authority shall make necessary enquiry as per the provisions of the Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the RECTLARR Act 2013 a contained in Chapter V of the Act, 2013, i.e. before preparation of the rehabilitation and resettlement award, in relation to the acquisition in question."

4. According to the learned Senior Advocate- Mr. Mehta, the direction to submit the scheme before the Collector for following the procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is not consonance with the provisions of NHA, particularly with Section 3 read with Section 3(g) and 3(i) of the NH Act.

5. In view of the above, let notice be issued only for the limited purpose of clarification as sought in the Special Leave Petition, returnable after four weeks.

6. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted."

5. He submits that although she is not opposing the prayer of the petitioners for rendering rehabilitation and resettlement award in terms of the mandate of Act 2013, but the said exercise should be conducted by the competent authority and not by the Collector.

6. Section 23 read with Section 31 of the Act, 2013 empowers the Collector to pass rehabilitation and resettlement award for each affected family in terms of the entitlements provided in the second schedule. Under Section 3(g) of the Act, 2013 the Collector has been defined thus:- "(g)Collector means the Collector of a revenue district, and includes a Deputy Commissioner and any officer specially designated by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act;"

7. It is evident from the definition of Collector that it includes any Officer specially designated by the appropriate Government to perform the functions of the Collector under the said Act.

8. In NH Act, the power to declare award is conferred upon the competent authority under Section 3G. The competent authority has been defined under Section 3(a) of the Act of 1956 as follows:- "(a) "competent authority" means any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification;"

9. It is not disputed that the Central Government had issued notification on 28.08.2015 under Section 105(3) of the Act, 2013 directing that the provisions relating to the second and third schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisitions under the enactments specified in the fourth schedule to the said Act. The effect of said notification is to extend the beneficial provisions of the Act, 2013 to the acquisitions made under the NH Act. However, the machinery provided for holding enquiry and determining compensation does not get altered. The same is still to be done in the manner and by the authority stipulated under the Statutes under which acquisition was done. We, therefore, find force in the submission of learned counsel for NHAI that in matters relating to acquisitions under NH Act, 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.

10. 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. 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.

11. The instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the competent authority to proceed with the exercise of examining the claims pertaining to rehabilitation and resettlement and declare award on the said aspect having regard to the provisions of Chapter V of the Act, 2013 within twelve weeks from the date of the communication of the instant order. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Sachin SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad