The court ruled that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to modify a compensation award once issued, affirming the principle that administrative instructions cannot alter a quasi-judicial determination.

ORDER :

K.S.HEMALEKHA, J.

The petitioner-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the proceedings titled as ‘Additional Award No.2’, dated 15.07.2023, the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 06.07.2024 and the subsequent ‘amendment award’ dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority (SLAO) – respondent No.2 for acquisition of lands situated in the B. Agrahara Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District for the purpose of widening National Highway-275 (Mysuru-Madikeri) Division.

Brief Facts:

2. The acquisition of land in question was initiated under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, (‘the NH Act’ for short). The preliminary notification under Section 3A (1) was issued on 05.01.2021 and the final notification under Section 3D (1) was issued on 09.03.2021 under the NH Act. The SLAO thereafter conducted an enquiry under Section 3G (3) and (4) of the NH Act and passed an award on 30.04.2021 determining compensation of Rs. 3.41 crores for the acquired lands.

3. On the challenge by the landowners before the Deputy Commissioner, acting as an Arbitrator under Section 3G (5), the said award was set aside by the Arbitral Award dated 15.09.2022, directing the SLAO to pass a fresh award in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act, 2013’ for short). In compliance, the SLAO passed a fresh award on 19.10.2022 determining the total compensation of about Rs.3,41,00,000/- for lands belonging to respondent Nos.3 and4. The same was duly approved by the petitioner for disbursement on 04.05.2023. Thereafter, the SLAO on 15.07.2023, issued another award styled as an ‘Additional Award No.2’, enhancing the compensation to Rs.6.46 crores, and again on 01.02.2024, passed an ‘amendment award’, further enhancing to Rs.10.55 crores purportedly on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner's letter dated 04.01.2024, which instructed him to re-examine the nature of the lands and pay compensation at converted rates. The NHAI challenges these proceedings as wholly without jurisdiction, contending that once the SLAO has passed the award dated 19.10.2022, he became functus officio and had no authority to reopen or revise it, and that the Deputy Commissioner had no power under the NH Act to issue administrative direction altering a quasi-judicial determination.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Contention of the petitioner

5. The petitioner contends that the SLAO, having once determined compensation under Section 3G of the NH Act, had no statutory power to re-adjudicate or alter the award. The subsequent, ‘additional award’ or ‘amendment awards’ are therefore void ab initio. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner's letter dated 04.01.2024 directing revision of compensation is wholly without jurisdiction, as the Deputy Commissioner was not acting as an Arbitral Authority under the NH Act, but merely issued administrative instructions. It is contended that these revisions have been made without hearing the NHAI, in violations of the principles of natural justice and have resulted in escalation of compensation from Rs.3.41 to Rs.10.55, thereby causing serious loss to the public exchequer. According to the petitioner, if respondents Nos.3 and 4 are aggrieved, they ought to have sought recourse under arbitral mechanism prescribed in Section 3G (5) of the NH Act and the Deputy Commissioner's intervention is outside the framework is impermissible. Hence, the impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be quashed.

Contention of respondent Nos.3 and 4

6. It is contended that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. They submit that the NHAI has an effective altern