The court emphasized the importance of the competent authority following the statutory functions under the National Highways Act, 1956, and upheld the petitioner's entitlement to rightful compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates for the parties finally, by consent.

2. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to pass Award as per chart/statement prepared by the Superintendent of Land Records, Aurangabad and to pay compensation for the excess land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”).

3. The petitioner is the owner and possessor of 53 R land out of Gat No.109 situated at Chitte Pimpalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. He had become the owner by purchase and thereafter the respondents had acquired 940 sq. mtrs. of the said land. Petitioner contends that he received a notice for collecting compensation of the amount in the month of October, 2017 and thereupon realized that his land has been acquired. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner had no knowledge about the acquisition prior to that date and he was normally residing in Mumbai for the purpose of education and thereafter private service. He had no knowledge in respect of the Joint Measurement, which was carried out in August, 2017. Thereafter, he received the said notice regarding the compensation in October, 2017. The petitioner further contends that even after the receipt of the said notice he had got the land measured privately to ascertain about the actual acquisition and it transpired that total 20 R i.e. approximately 1920 sq. mtrs. land was in fact acquired, but compensation has been granted only to the extent of 940 sq. mtrs. Therefore, he immediately made an application to the respondents for payment of the compensation for the excess acquisition. Thereafter, he was pursuing the said matter and once again made application on 18.03.2019. He again requested for the re-measurement and payment of rightful compensation to him. Thereupon, it is stated that the Deputy Director of Land Records passed the order on 30.07.2019 in respect of re-measurement of the land. Thereafter, re-measurement was conducted and on the basis of the same comparative chart of actual land acquired and the land mentioned in the Award was prepared by Deputy Director of Land Records under his signature by communication dated 20.10.2020. It showed that before correction that as per the earlier record 0.094 R is shown to have been acquired from the petitioner and in re-measurement it transpired to be 00.16.92 R. As less compensation has been paid, the petitioner once again made request to the authorities to grant him compensation, but when his request was not accepted he has approached this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mrs. A.N. Ansari for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. A.R. Kale for respondent no.1, learned advocate Mr. D.S. Manorkar for respondent no.2 and learned advocate Mr. D.B. Gaikwad for respondent no.3. Perused the affidavit-in-reply and additional affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, so also affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3.

5. Peculiar facts of the case which have to be considered are that the land belonging to the petitioner has been acquired by the respondent-authorities. It was for the up-gradation of the road from 2 lane to 4 lane of Solapur-Dhule section on NH 211 in the State of Maharashtra. Notification under Section 3-A of the Act with the approval of the Central Government came to be published in the Gazette of India on 23.10.2012. The Notification was published in the two local newspapers having wide circulation in the locality. Thereafter notice for hearing under Section 3-C of the Act was given on 24.12.2012. At the time of hearing, 22 persons had raised certain objections, however, the petitioner had not raised any objection. The Joint Measurement was initially done on 04.05.2013. Thereafter the report was published as required under Section 3-D of the Act. Total area under acquisition was 9216 sq. mtrs. and regarding the area of the petitioner is concerned, it was stated that 940 sq. mtrs. out of Gat N