(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

16.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents No.7 to 9.

2. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):-

“i. To kindly allow the present Writ Appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3602 of 2022;

ii. To kindly allow the writ petition by quashing the memo/order dated 26.05.2022 and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto and kindly grant all reliefs as prayed in the writ petition.

iii. To kindly direct the respondents to release the entire compensation amount awarded vide award dated 15.07.2019 to the Appellant along with 18% interest.

iv. To kindly pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.3602/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been disposed of.

4. The brief facts projected before the learned Single Judge were that the land of the appellant/writ petitioner bearing Khasra No. 52/2, admeasuring 0.146 hectare, P.H. No. 08, situated at Village Katghora, was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India for the purpose of widening of National Highway No. 111 under the Bharatmala Project. In pursuance thereof, the competent authority initiated Land Acquisition Case No. 31/A- 82/2018-19 and, vide award dated 15.07.2019, determined compensation amounting to ₹79,35,656/-, which was deposited by NHAI in the bank account of the appellant/writ petitioner.

5. Thereafter, vide memo dated 17.03.2020, the aforesaid amount was withheld. Subsequently, the Tahsildar submitted a report on 08.04.2022 stating that Dashoda Bai, Dashmat Bai, Basant Bai, Santoshi Bai and Indrapal Singh are also descendants of the father of the appellant/writ petitioner. Acting upon the said report, the competent authority directed the bank to apportion the compensation amount into six equal shares. Consequently, the shares of the aforesaid five persons were released and only one- sixth of the compensation amount was retained in the account of the appellant/writ petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by the said action, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred the writ petition bearing WPC No.3602/2022 before the learned Single Judge, which was disposed of vide order dated12.01.2026.

7. Calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated12.01.2026, the appellant/writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that once an award determining the quantum of compensation as well as the person entitled to receive the same has been passed, the competent authority becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to subsequently alter or dilute such determination by way of administrative or executive directions. It is contended that the apportionment directed vide memo dated 26.05.2022, though styled as an administrative action, in substance amounts to modification of the award itself, thereby directly affecting the vested right of the appellant/writ petitioner to receive the entire compensation amount. It is further submitted that the provisions contained in Sections 75 and 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are applicable only in cases whe