Court holds that corrigendum cannot substitute statutory land acquisition process; fresh proceedings required for acquiring additional land for public purpose
In a significant judgment delivered on September 17, 2026, the Tripura High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, set aside a corrigendum notification that sought to acquire an additional 0.019 acres of land from petitioner Smt. Gitanjali Saha after the completion of an earlier land acquisition and payment of compensation. The land in question was originally acquired for a four-lane road project from Lichubagan to Agartala Airport, with 0.021 acres lawfully acquired and compensated for between 2020 and 2022.
The petitioner challenged the corrigendum dated August 12, 2022, which was issued to acquire the residual land adjacent to the originally acquired plot. She argued that the corrigendum was issued without following the statutory procedure under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). The petitioner contended that the corrigendum was improperly used to extend the scope of the original acquisition post-completion of the project and compensation, allegedly to benefit a local municipal councillor and neighbor rather than for a genuine public purpose.
The State respondents defended the corrigendum, asserting that the additional land was necessary for parking, a footpath, and facilitating the movement of school children, thus serving a public interest. They claimed that the corrigendum was properly notified and the acquisition process was legally valid.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent set in State of U.P. and others v. Abdul Ali and others (Civil Appeal No. 95 of 2017), which clarified that once an award has been passed under land acquisition laws, any attempt to include additional land through corrigenda or notifications to correct original acquisition proceedings is impermissible. The judgment emphasized that corrigenda are intended only to correct clerical or typographical errors and cannot be used to alter the fundamental scope of land acquisition or acquire additional land.
The Court observed that the original acquisition proceedings were complete, the project was operational as of March 2022, and compensation had been paid for the 0.021 acres. The subsequent corrigendum was thus not a valid statutory notification under the land acquisition laws. The Court ordered the setting aside of the corrigendum dated August 12, 2022, and all consequential orders, directing the State authorities to return the 0.019 acres to the petitioner forthwith.
However, the Court left the door open for the State to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law if additional land is genuinely required for public purposes such as parking or pedestrian pathways, reiterating the need for strict adherence to statutory procedures.
This ruling reinforces the principle that land acquisition must be conducted transparently and strictly in compliance with statutory provisions, safeguarding individual property rights against arbitrary expansions of acquisition scope post-judgment and compensation.
Bottom Line:
Land acquisition - Corrigendum cannot be used to acquire additional land after completion of original acquisition proceedings and payment of compensation - If further land is required for public purpose, fresh acquisition proceedings must be initiated in accordance with law.
Statutory provision(s):
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 19 of the Act; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (referenced in precedent)
Smt. Gitanjali Saha v. State of Tripura, (Tripura) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990638
