Introduction:

In the case of Rajendra Singh And 5 Others v. National Highway Authority Of India And 2 Others [2025 LiveLaw (AB) 287; Writ – C No. – 18100 of 2025], the Allahabad High Court revisited the question of who is the proper authority to issue awards regarding rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) when land is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar distinguished its view from that taken in an earlier coordinate bench ruling in Ranvir Singh And 35 Others v. National Highway Authority Of India, concluding that it is the Competent Authority—as defined in Section 3(a) of the NH Act—and not the Collector, who must decide and issue such R&R awards. The ruling addresses a critical procedural ambiguity affecting numerous landowners whose properties are acquired for highway development and signals a clearer pathway for administrative responsibility.

Petitioners’ Arguments:

The petitioners in the instant case, represented by Advocates Dharmendra Kumar Pandey and Samsad Ahmed Khan, had approached the Court seeking issuance of rehabilitation and resettlement awards for land that had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, invoking their rights under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They contended that despite the acquisition, the authorities had failed to declare and disburse the R&R award as required under the applicable statutory scheme. Their plea relied heavily on the interpretation laid down in the Ranvir Singh judgment, wherein the High Court had previously held that the provisions of the 2013 Act—including those dealing with R&R—were applicable to acquisitions under the NH Act. More specifically, Ranvir Singh had concluded that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) could submit a proposal for such awards to the Collector, who would then act under Section 31 of the 2013 Act. This precedent was cited to justify the claim that the Collector was the competent officer to issue the R&R award.

Respondents’ Arguments:

On the other side, the National Highway Authority of India, represented by Counsel Sushmita Mukherjee, countered the petitioners’ reliance on Ranvir Singh by pointing out a critical distinction. According to NHAI, the Ranvir Singh judgment was presently under challenge before the Supreme Court, where notice had been issued specifically on the question of whether the Collector had any jurisdiction to issue R&R awards under the NH Act framework. NHAI contended that only the Competent Authority as defined under Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act, 1956, had the statutory mandate to examine claims for rehabilitation and resettlement and make a formal award. They argued that the prior ruling misinterpreted the statutory framework and that relying on the operative directions of Ranvir Singh, rather than its ratio decidendi (legal reasoning), was misleading. They stressed that statutory interpretation and administrative practice both pointed to the Competent Authority—not the Collector—as the one responsible for this role.

Court’s Judgment:

After evaluating the competing arguments, the Court held that while the Ranvir Singh case indeed held that the 2013 Act applies to acquisitions under the NH Act, the binding precedent from that case lay in its recognition of the applicability of the 2013 Act, not in its operational direction asking the Collector to issue awards. The Bench clarified that the latter was not the ratio decidendi of the Ranvir Singh ruling and hence not binding. It also noted that the pending challenge before the Supreme Court further complicated reliance on the operative direction. The Court proceeded to rule that the Competent Authority, as specified in Section 3(a) of the NH Act, alone has the legal competence to deal with R&R claims and declare awards. It categorically held that the Collector was not the authorized officer under the NH Act framework and that a conflation of roles between two statutes—NH Act and the 2013 Act—should not override the express definition and authority provided in Section 3(a) of the NH Act.

The Court emphasized the importance of clarity in the implementation of statutory schemes, especially when large numbers of land acquisition cases are at stake. It expressed concern over the recurring legal confusion leading to a steady stream of litigation and the resultant judicial burden. Noting the systemic nature of the issue, the Court directed the Central Government to issue an official circular clarifying the legal position on the authority responsible for making R&R awards in acquisitions conducted under the NH Act. This directive was aimed at avoiding redundant petitions and ensuring consistency in future processes.

The decision in Rajendra Singh thus not only resolves the present case but also attempts to preemptively address administrative bottlenecks and judicial overload stemming from jurisdictional ambiguities. While recognizing that the broader principles of the 2013 Act still apply, the Court reinforced the procedural primacy of the NH Act’s specified roles. The Competent Authority, and not the Collector, is to perform the evaluative and declaratory functions with respect to R&R claims in NH-related acquisitions.