Acquired National Highway Land Cannot Be Returned After Compensation: Madhya Pradesh HC

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction for return of a portion of land that had been acquired for construction of a National Highway but remained unutilised thereafter, holding that once land is acquired and compensation duly paid, there is no provision under the National Highways Act for its return, the land having vested in the Union of India.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioner, whose land comprised in Khasra No.633/1 had been partly used for construction of a National Highway. It was the petitioner's contention that 0.043 hectares of land in village Kemar remained unutilised after the construction and sought a direction to the respondents to return the same in her favour.

Shri Anubhav Jain, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, submitted that the issue stood settled by two learned Single Judges of the Court, in Dayanand vs. Union of India and in Dadhiram Jatav vs. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India & others, both of which held that once land was acquired and compensation duly paid, there being no provision for return of such land, which stood vested in the Union of India, no indulgence could be shown.

Shri Mohan Sausarkar, appearing for respondent No.4, placed reliance on a Division Bench order in Pradeep Pandey & others vs. The Collector Sagar, District Sagar & others, wherein relief had been declined after considering Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the Supreme Court's decision in Project Director, National Highways vs. M. Hakeem. The Court, however, held that this judgment concerned land acquisition under the 2013 Act and not under the National Highways Act, and was therefore not applicable to the facts of the present case.

The Court instead found the decisions in Dayanand and Dadhiram Jatav to be identical on the aspect of land acquired under the National Highways Act. It noted that in Dadhiram Jatav, the learned Single Judge had considered Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, along with the Supreme Court's decision in Leelawanti and others vs. State of Haryana and others, and had held that since the land was acquired for construction of a highway and no provision existed under the National Highways Act for its return, the Union of India could not be directed to return it.

Finding no material to take a view contrary to this position, the Court held that the ratio laid down in Dadhiram Jatav would govern the present case as well, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Shri Mahendra Singh Lodhi, Advocate.

For the State: Shri Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate.

For Respondent No.4: Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Advocate.

Case Title: Kaushalya Devi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 12162 of 2026