Court holds landowners can claim enhanced compensation parity based on arbitral awards despite procedural lapses; administrative rejection on limitation grounds set aside
In a significant judgment dated October 27, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, through Justice Subba Reddy Satti, delivered a ruling in the writ petition filed by Kurra Krishna Murthy against the State of Andhra Pradesh and others concerning compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner's land, falling under the NH-216 alignment, was initially compensated based on a notification and award that categorized lands differently, resulting in varied compensation rates.
Some landowners, similarly situated, obtained an enhanced arbitral award treating their land as non-agricultural and valued at Rs. 4,500 per square yard, significantly higher than the original award. The petitioner sought parity in compensation based on this enhanced award. However, his claim was rejected administratively by the third respondent on grounds of limitation, stating that the petitioner failed to apply within three years of the original award.
The High Court examined the interplay between the National Highways Act, 1956, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). It was held that despite Section 3J of the National Highways Act excluding the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the RFCTLARR Act's provisions apply to highway land acquisitions as per the Fourth Schedule notification and subsequent government orders. This means landowners under the National Highways Act are entitled to the benefits of the 2013 Act, including compensation enhancements.
Importantly, the Court ruled that Section 73 of the RFCTLARR Act, which allows aggrieved landowners covered by the same notification to seek re-determination of compensation within three months of an enhanced award, is pari materia with Section 28A of the 1894 Act. Thus, the petitioner's right to claim parity arose from the date of the enhanced arbitral award, not the original award date. Hence, the administrative rejection based on a three-year limitation was erroneous.
Further, the Court clarified that the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS), through which the petitioner sought enhancement, is an administrative platform and not a substitute for statutory proceedings. The third respondent lacked authority to reject the claim on limitation grounds or decide compensation enhancement. Instead, such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the District Collector and the Arbitrator as per statutory provisions.
The Court set aside the impugned administrative endorsement and directed the District Collector to re-determine the petitioner's compensation in terms of the enhanced arbitral award within four weeks, ensuring parity with similarly situated landowners.
This ruling reinforces the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated landowners under the constitutional mandate of equality (Article 14) and affirms the applicability of the RFCTLARR Act's beneficial provisions to National Highways land acquisitions. It also underscores the necessity of following proper statutory procedures rather than administrative shortcuts in land acquisition compensation disputes.
Bottom Line:
National Highways Act, 1956 - Land acquisition - Landowner whose land was acquired under same notification is entitled to seek re-determination/parity of compensation on basis of enhanced arbitral award granted to similarly situated landowners - Such claim is to be considered in light of Section 73 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, pari materia with Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Third respondent was not competent to reject claim on limitation through PGRS endorsement - Endorsement set aside and District Collector directed to re-determine compensation in terms of enhanced award.
Statutory provision(s): National Highways Act, 1956 Sections 3G(5), 3J; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sections 73, 105; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 28A; Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137
Kurra Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AP) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004928
