The Allahabad High Court has clarified that it is the "competent authority" under the National Highways Act, 1956 — and not the district Collector — who is responsible for examining claims for rehabilitation and resettlement and declaring the corresponding awards in cases of land acquisition by the National Highways Authority of India. This ruling emerged from an appeal where petitioners whose land had been acquired under the National Highways Act had received compensation but not the rehabilitation and resettlement benefits stipulated in the Second Schedule to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
In preceding judgments, a division bench of the High Court had held that provisions of the 2013 Act would apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, and that the competent authority should prepare proposals for rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements to be submitted to the Collector, who would then issue the award under Section 31 of the 2013 Act. That earlier ruling, known as Ranvir Singh and 35 others v. National Highway Authority of India, directed that the NHAI would prepare proposals under Chapter V of the 2013 Act, including entitlements such as housing, annuity, employment, and a one-time resettlement allowance, and submit these proposals before the Collector.
In the present batch of petitions, the NHAI and Government contended that the prior directions were inconsistent with the statutory roles defined under the National Highways Act. They argued that Section 3(a) of the 1956 Act defines the "competent authority" as the designated official notified by the Central Government, and that this authority alone is empowered to examine compensation and resettlement claims and pass awards under the National Highways Act itself. They maintained that although the 2013 Act’s provisions extend to acquisitions under the National Highways Act (by way of the Central Government's notification under Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act), the procedural machinery for holding hearings and passing awards remains governed by the National Highways Act.
The petitioners requested mandamus relief directing the Collector to pass rehabilitation and resettlement awards under the Second Schedule entitlements. They argued that their cases were on par with those previously decided in the Ranvir Singh judgment and sought similar relief. Though earlier rulings had been applied to multiple similar petitions, the NHAI and State maintained that the earlier directions to involve the Collector were not consistent with the statutory distribution of authority.
The division bench of the High Court, presided over by Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, examined the statutory definitions and the roles under both Acts. The Court emphasized that Section 23 read with Section 31 of the 2013 Act empowers the Collector under that Act to pass rehabilitation and resettlement awards in land acquisition matters. However, the Collector under the 2013 Act is defined under Section 3(g), which is separate and distinct from the "competent authority" under the National Highways Act defined in Section 3(a). The latter refers to officials notified by the Central Government and authorized to function under the National Highways Act.
On the narrow issue raised by NHAI, the High Court ruled that the operative directions in the Ranvir Singh case which instructed the Collector to make awards are not part of the ratio decidendi, and therefore not binding in the present cases. The Court clarified that while the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act (including entitlements) apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, the incumbent authority vested with the statutory power to conduct inquiries and pass awards remains the competent authority as defined under the National Highways Act, not the Collector.
Following this legal clarification, the High Court disposed of the petitions by directing the competent authority under the National Highways Act to proceed with examining claims for rehabilitation and resettlement and to make awards accordingly, in compliance with the provisions of Chapter V of the 2013 Act. The Court stipulated that this exercise should be completed expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from the date the order is communicated.
The Court also noted that numerous petitions were being filed on identical grounds, seeking direction to the Collector. Given the legal uncertainty, it suggested that the Central Government issue a circular clarifying the proper authority competent to award rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in cases of National Highways Act acquisitions. This, the Court said, would prevent multiple similar writ petitions and streamline the process.
In essence, the High Court held that though land acquisitions under the National Highways Act attract the entitlements of the 2013 Act, the statutory machinery for inquiries and awards must be conducted by the "competent authority" defined under the National Highways Act itself, and not by the district Collector. The judgments in Ranvir Singh and other prior petitions would no longer be understood as requiring involvement of the Collector, and future claims must be routed through the competent authority.Notification of the Central Government putting the 2013 Act’s provisions into effect for National Highways acquisitions does not alter the identity of the statutory authority responsible for award grants.
The petitions were accordingly disposed of with a directive to the competent authority to take up rehabilitation entitlements under the Second Schedule for affected families under the National Highways Act, and complete the award process within a specified period.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.