Point of Law : Once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be divested, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be reconveyed to the persons-interested/ tenure holders, and that therefore, the question of restitution of possession to the tenure holder, does not arise.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioners’ land stand acquired by the respondents under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Award to that regard has been passed in their favour. However, compensation amount has not been paid to them. Hence, they seek compensation in terms of the award dated 15.03.2021 passed by the respondents for acquisition of their lands.

2. Petitioners’ simple case is that: -

2(i) The respondents required the land for building (widening/four laning etc.), maintenance, management and operation of NH-154 on the stretch of land from Km 42.000 to Km 51.000 (Pathankot-Mandi section). The respondents declared their intention to acquire the land within this stretch of road. Notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (the Act hereinafter), was issued on 09.02.2018, expressing the intention to acquire the land measuring 10-92-98 Hectares on the stretch in question. Petitioners’ lands were also intended to be acquired under the said Notification.

2(ii) No Notification for declaration of acquisition as was required under Sections 3(D) of the Act was issued within a period of one year from the date of publication of Notification under Section 3A. Inspite of this, an award of compensation under Section 3(G) and 3(H) of the Act was passed on 31.12.2020. The award included petitioners’ land as well.

2(iii) Realizing that no Notification under Section 3(D) within the period permissible under the Act, was issued, therefore, fresh exercise for acquiring the land was undertaken by the respondents. The Notification under Section 3(A) was re-issued on 20.10.2020 in accordance with law. Notification under Section 3(D) was issued on 11.12.2020. In terms of Section 3(G) (3), notice inviting claims from the land owners/persons interested therein by or before 07.03.2021 was also issued by the respondents in February, 2021. Final award of compensation under Sections 3(G) and 3(H) of the Act, in respect of acquisition of lands in question, was passed on 15.03.2021.

2(iv) Petitioners’ lands form part of the land acquired by the respondents and were also part of the award dated 15.03.2021.

3. The above facts have not been disputed by the contesting respondents No. 2 and 4 (National Highway Authority of India) (NHAI in short) in the short affidavit filed by them to the writ petition. The respondents No. 1 and 4 have not filed reply to the writ petition.

4. The controversy

The limited grievance of the petitioners is that even after passing of the award dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure P-2), the respondents have not released the compensation amount due and admissible to them. The only defence taken by the contesting respondent-NHAI in its reply is that:-

“the petitioners’ lands are situated over the tunnel falling beyond 60 mts, as such, the land in question is not required for creating any tunnel related infrastructure or for the construction of the project highway.…………….in the aforesaid circumstances, deponent most humbly submits that since the land in question is not required for construction, the same may please be utilized by the landowners and NHAI may please be divested from such land so as to have no right whatsoever in the land in question on account of various notifications issued under National Highways Act, 1956. The land owner may please use the land in question as may be permissible under the law. Furthermore, in case such land is required any time in future, same will be acquired as per the prescribed procedure as may be permissible at the relevant time.”

5. Observations

The gist of the stand taken by the respondent-NHAI is that it had though acquired petitioners’ lands in question, however, the aforesaid lands are now surplus and not required by it. The NHAI has prayed that it should be divested from the acquired land of the petitioners and landowners can utilize the land in the manner they deem proper. The stand taken by the respondent-NHAI is completely dehors the settled legal position. Regarding