Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the National Highway Authority of India to pay compensation as per a modified award dated 14.08.2017 for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The land was acquired for broadening National Highway no.211, and an initial award was passed on 04.08.2016 -- The petitioners challenged this award through arbitration and also obtained a Corrigendum from the Competent Authority modifying the award -- The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to modify the award after passing it, as it becomes functus officio -- The Court relied on precedent stating that Section 33 of the Fair Compensation Act, 2013 does not apply to National Highways Act acquisitions -- The petitioners' remedy is through the pending arbitration proceedings under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the writ petition was found not maintainable
Headnote
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking enforcement of a modified award for compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The petitioners, landowners, had their land acquired for broadening National Highway no.211, and an initial award was passed on 04.08.2016 under Section 3-G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The petitioners challenged this award through arbitration under Section 3-G(5) and also obtained a Corrigendum dated 14.08.2017 from the Competent Authority modifying the award -- The Court held that once an award is passed, the Competent Authority becomes functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to modify it, as established in Bhupendrasingh Sardarsingh Parmar v. Competent Authority for National Highway and others (2020) -- The Court further ruled that Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 -- The petitioners' remedy lies in the pending arbitration proceedings, and the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction to modify the award dated 04.08.2016 by issuing a Corrigendum dated 14.08.2017 under the National Highways Act, 1956, and whether the petitioners are entitled to enforcement of this modified award through a writ petition
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to modify the award after passing it, as it becomes functus officio -- The Court ruled that the petitioners' remedy lies in the pending arbitration proceedings under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the writ petition was not maintainable
