Section 94 of 2013 Land Acquisition Act inapplicable to Highways Act acquisitions; only specified schedules for compensation, R&R apply. Belated claims post-award cannot halt projects, but affected user rights merit expeditious compensation consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

The petitioners have invoked Section 94 of the RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) to claim that the impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 - National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) deserves to be quashed and that the respondents ought to undertake land acquisition proceedings pertaining to the remaining portion of Godown L1 situated at Mauje Bhoirgaon, Taluka - Bhiwandi, District - Thane. The petitioners own some galas in the remaining portion. On the other hand, the respondent - NHAI contends that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is not available to the petitioners in terms of Section 105 thereof, as acquisitions undertaken as per the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Highways Act’) are not covered under the provisions of the Act of 2013. It is contended that even on facts, it can be demonstrated that the petitioners cannot take shelter of Section 94 of the Act of 2013, to thwart the construction work of Vadodara Mumbai Expressway, in respect of which maximum work has been completed, but for the stretch concerning Village - Bhoirgaon, Taluka - Bhiwandi, District - Thane.

2. It would be necessary to briefly refer to the chronology of events, in the backdrop of which the aforesaid competing claims made by the parties are to be decided.

3. The petitioners are owners of some galas in Godown L1 located at Village - Bhoirgaon, Taluka - Bhiwandi, District - Thane. The petitioners have placed on record copies of Index-II and other such documents to demonstrate their ownership in the respective galas. According to the petitioners, when they came across a demolition drive undertaken in respect of structures in the vicinity of Godown L1, they became aware about the acquisition of lands undertaken by the respondent No.4 - Competent Authority of the State for the purposes of the said expressway. On further enquiries, the petitioners became aware about the land acquisition award dated 24.11.2023, passed by the Competent Authority for land acquisition in order to make land available to the NHAI for construction of the said expressway as part of a National Highway Project.

4. In this backdrop on 30.10.2025, the petitioners through their advocates sent a representation to the respondent No.3 - Collector, Thane, claiming rights under Section 94 of the Act of 2013. It was submitted that since the petitioners are also owners of galas in Godown L1, they have a right to raise objection under Section 94 of the Act of 2013, which stipulates that when a part of any house, manufactory or building is acquired and the owner desires that the whole of such house, manufactory or building should be acquired and if dispute arises in that context, the Collector is bound to refer such dispute to the ‘Authority’ as defined under Secti