The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the Kakinada District Collector to re-determine compensation payable to a landowner whose property was acquired for the NH-216 highway project, on par with similarly situated landowners who had secured enhanced compensation through arbitration.

The Court held that a landowner who had not initially sought enhancement under the National Highways Act, 1956, could seek re-determination of compensation on the basis of an enhanced award granted to other landowners covered by the same acquisition notification.

It clarified that the right to claim such parity arose when compensation for the other landowners was enhanced, not when the original acquisition award was passed.

Under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 the competent authority determines compensation for acquired land. If either party is dissatisfied with the amount, Section 3G(5) allows them to seek its determination by an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.

Section 73 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, provides a separate remedy. It allows other landowners covered by the same preliminary notification to seek re-determination within three months of an enhanced award granted by the Authority.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti was hearing a petition challenging an endorsement issued by the Joint Collector, Kakinada, rejecting a landowner's request for enhanced compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Court observed:

“... a landowner whose land is acquired under the National Highways Act 1956 does not stand outside the compensation regime of the Act 30 of 2013. Where, therefore, the competent authority determines compensation for lands covered by the same notification and the Arbitrator enhances it on a reference under Section 3G(5), a landowner who did not seek such a reference is not left without a remedy.

What the petitioner seeks is not a fresh determination of the compensation awarded to him standing by itself, but compensation on par with that awarded to the similarly situated landowners by the enhanced award. The right to seek such parity could arise only when the compensation of the similarly situated landowners was enhanced, that is, on 30.03.2026, and not on 31.03.2016, when the original award was passed.”

The dispute arose from the acquisition of the petitioner's lands at Ganganapalli village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, for the NH-216 alignment.

The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition passed an award on March 31, 2016, classifying the acquired land as either agricultural land or house sites. Agricultural land was valued per acre, while house-site land was valued per square yard.

As the petitioner's land was classified as agricultural, it received a substantially lower valuation.

Subsequently, other landowners covered by the same notification sought enhancement through arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. The District Collector, acting as Arbitrator, enhanced the compensation by treating the land as non-agricultural and adopting the rate applicable to house sites.

Seeking similar treatment, the petitioner approached the authorities through the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS). The Joint Collector rejected the request through an endorsement, stating that he had not sought enhancement within the prescribed period and was therefore not entitled to the enhanced compensation.

The petitioner challenged this endorsement before the High Court.

He contended that he had not been served with the original award and had obtained a copy only through an RTI application. He also argued that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period, did not apply to arbitral proceedings under the National Highways Act.

Examining the statutory framework, the Court considered the interplay between the National Highways Act and the 2013 Act. It noted that Section 3J of the National Highways Act excludes the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquisitions under the former Act.

However, Section 105 of the 2013 Act provides for the extension of certain beneficial provisions to acquisitions under enactments listed in its Fourth Schedule. While Section 105(1) ordinarily excludes the application of the 2013 Act to such acquisitions, Section 105(3) empowers the Central Government to extend provisions relating to compensation under the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement under the Second and Third Schedules. The National Highways Act is listed at Serial No. 7 of the Fourth Schedule.

Exercising this power, the Central Government issued the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015, effective from September 1, 2015. It extended the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act to acquisitions under the Fourth Schedule enactments, including the National Highways Act.

The Court therefore held that landowners whose properties were acquired under the National Highways Act were entitled to the applicable compensation provisions of the 2013 Act.

Distinguishing the available remedies, the Court clarified that Section 3G(5) allows parties dissatisfied with the competent authority's compensation determination to seek arbitration. Section 73, on the other hand, allows other landowners covered by the same acquisition notification to seek re-determination when compensation is subsequently enhanced through arbitration. The Court noted that Section 73 is in pari materia with Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Applying this provision, the Court noted that the petitioner had approached the authorities on May 11, 2026, within three months of the enhanced award dated March 30, 2026.

His claim could not be rejected by computing limitation from the original award dated March 31, 2016, as his right to seek parity arose only when compensation for the other landowners was enhanced.

The Bench also observed that the applicability of Article 137 of the Limitation Act to applications under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act was pending consideration before the Supreme Court. It clarified that the three-year limitation period did not apply to the facts of this case.

On the handling of the petitioner's grievance, the Court noted that PGRS was an administrative mechanism and could not substitute statutory proceedings. Referring to a Revenue Department memorandum dated September 24, 2026, which clarified that PGRS was only meant to receive and monitor grievances, the Bench held that the authorities should have forwarded the petitioner's grievance to the competent authority instead of rejecting it on limitation grounds.

The Court further held that the Joint Collector was not competent to decide the claim for enhanced compensation. The District Collector was the competent authority to consider the petitioner's request.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the endorsement, and directed the District Collector, Kakinada, to re-determine compensation for the petitioner's acquired lands in terms of the enhanced award within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

The writ petition was allowed.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. D. Seshasayana Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue and Government Pleader for Land Acquisition