Deprivation Of Property Without Timely Compensation Violates Article 14: MP High Court On Land Acquisition For NH Project

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed the petition, where land was acquired for the construction of the National Highway, but the compensation amount was not released, observing that depriving landowners of their property without timely compensation violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice BP Sharma observed; "The right to receive compensation for acquired land is not a mere statutory entitlement but a constitutional guarantee flowing from Article 300- A. Deprivation of property without timely compensation amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The policy governing acquisition of missing plots through mutual consent itself contemplates expeditious acquisition and prompt payment to avoid delays and disputes. The very objective of such policy stands frustrated if the landowners, after consenting to acquisition, are made to wait indefinitely for compensation". A writ petition was filed seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State to release and disburse the compensation amount adjudicated in favour of the petitioners in lieu of the acquisition of their lands for the construction of the National Highway. The petitioners' owner lands in District Shahdol, which were initially not included in the bulk acquisition for the construction of the highway connecting Umariya to Shahdol. Subsequently, the authorities discovered that the petitioners' lands were required to complete the project. Therefore, the Ministry of Road Transport and the Ministry issued a circular on March 15, 2016. The said circular specifically provides for the acquisition of missing plots through mutual order to avoid delays. Accordingly, the petitioners were granted ₹3.35 crores for the acquisition of the land. The record also demonstrated that the proposal, along with the awarded amount, was forwarded to the competent authority for release on January 2, 2026. Per the petitioners, they have repeatedly submitted representations to the concerned authority, but no action was taken. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents' entire action in withholding the compensation amount was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was argued that the petitioners had a right to receive compensation for the acquired lands as the same was a pivotal aspect of the right to property, Article 300A of the Constitution. The counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the release of the compensation amount was delayed due to procedural and administrative requirements involved in payment processing. After hearing the submission, the court noted that the land belonging to the petitioners was acquired for a public purpose and the acquisition was carried out under the policy of mutual consent following the circular of March 15, 2016. The bench further observed that the authority had adjudicated the compensation amount as ₹3.35 crores. Therefore, the only issue remaining for consideration was regarding the failure of respondents to disburse the said amount. The court rejected the respondent's submission regarding administrative delay. The bench emphasized, "Once the acquisition is complete and compensation has been determined, the respondents are under a bounden duty to ensure prompt payment. Any delay in payment defeats the very purpose of the statutory scheme and causes grave prejudice to the landowners". The bench highlighted that the right to receive compensation is a constitutional guarantee flowing from Article 300A of the Constitution. The bench held that depriving the petitioner of their property without timely compensation violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as the policy itself contemplates expeditious acquisition and prompt payment to avoid delays and disputes. Thus, the court stated, "once the respondents have themselves quantified the compensation and forwarded the proposal for payment, there remains no justification whatsoever for withholding the amount. Administrative inefficiencies or procedural delays cannot be permitted to override the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioners". Therefore, the bench allowed the petition and directed the respondents to take all necessary steps to release and disburse the compensation amount within a period of 8 weeks. Case Title: Shanti Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-15538-2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 192For Petitioners: Advocate Mohan SausarkarFor State: Additional Advocate General Abhijit AwasthyFor MP Road Development Corporation: Advocate Anvesh ShrivastavaClick here to read/download the Order

Deprivation Of Property Without Timely Compensation Violates Article 14: MP High Court On Land Acquisition For NH Project

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Deprivation Of Property Without Timely Compensation Violates Article 14: MP High Court On Land Acquisition For NH Project

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers