The court ruled that compensation evaluations in land acquisition must fully account for the actual land value and any improvements.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 Petitioner claims title to 21.053 ares of land in re-survey no.90/2 of Perumanna Village. A certain extent of land has been acquired by the 5^th respondent/competent authority. An Award was passed on 04.08.2023 granting compensation to the petitioner without considering the true nature of the land and also the improvements with respect to 25 coconut trees and areca nut trees. The 3^rd respondent/Project Director, who approved the valuation and who deposited the amount of compensation in part, had later withdrawn from that stand and filed an application on 08.09.2023 before the 6^th respondent/Arbitrator challenging all Awards. Now, the value, which has been offered to the petitioner, has been reduced on the basis of a subsequent Basic Valuation Report (B.V.R) without notice to the affected parties. According to the petitioner, Exts.P6 and P7 Orders are illegal and contrary to the mandate of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act , 2013, ('2013 Act', for short). Petitioner seeks the same to be quashed.

2. On behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3, it was pointed out that similar contentions were addressed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)No.19345/2024 as per judgment dated 15.11.2024, whereby, the Order impugned therein was set aside and the National Highways Authority of India (N.H.A.I) was given liberty to challenge the individual Awards. Similar rights have been granted to the claimants therein also. A course similar to the one taken in that Writ Petition can be adopted, is the submission made by the learned Senior Panel Counsel.

3. The above submission of the Senior Panel Counsel was supported by the learned Senior Government Pleader, for and on behalf of respondents 4, 5 and 6. Learned Government Pleader would also add that the hearing in terms of the directions in W.P.(C)No.19345/2024 is going on.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that Ext.P6 Order will stand set aside. The directions similar to the one granted in W.P.(C) No.19345/2024 are hereby allowed, as follows:

(a) The N.H.A.I. is granted liberty to challenge the individual Awards involved in the writ petition, if they so desire, before the Arbitrator, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(b) The N.H.A.I. is free to take up all the contentions raised in the writ petition in the arbitration proceedings.

(c) The claimant is also entitled to take up all the contentions he has raised in the writ petition, including the maintainability of the arbitration applications under Section 3G(5).

(d) Once the arbitration applications are filed, the Arbitrator is directed to dispose of all the application within a period of one year.

(e) The claimant is at liberty to move an application before the Arbitrator for the release of the Award amount already deposited. On receipt of such application, the Arbitrator shall dispose of the same, within one month, in accordance with law.

The Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of, as above.

Sd/-