WP16191_25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.16191 OF 2025

Anirudha Manohar Khopade and others … Petitioners

Vs.

Union of India and others … Respondents

Mr. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (through VC) a/w. Mr. Shreyas Deshpande

and Mr. Sandeep Rebari i/b. Mr. Shreyas Deshpande for Petitioners.

Ms. Vaishali Choudhary a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Ms. Shazia Ansari for

Respondent No.1 - Union of India.

Mr. Anil Singh, ASG s/w. Mr. Ravi Kini, Mr. Rakesh L. Singh, Mr. Dhaval and

Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.2 - NHAI.

Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - State.

Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Manager (NHAI) present.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

Reserved on : FEBRUARY 03, 2026

Pronounced on : FEBRUARY 24, 2026

JUDGEMENT : (Per Justice Manish Pitale)

. The petitioners have invoked Section 94 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) to

claim that the impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent

No.2 - National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) deserves to be

quashed and that the respondents ought to undertake land acquisition

proceedings pertaining to the remaining portion of Godown L1 situated

at Mauje Bhoirgaon, Taluka - Bhiwandi, District - Thane. The petitioners

own some galas in the remaining portion. On the other hand, the

respondent - NHAI contends that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is not

available to the petitioners in terms of Section 105 thereof, as

acquisitions undertaken as per the National Highways Act, 1956

1/31

WP16191_25.doc

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Highways Act’) are not covered under the

provisions of the Act of 2013. It is contended that even on facts, it can be

demonstrated that the petitioners cannot take shelter of Section 94 of the

Act of 2013, to thwart the construction work of Vadodara Mumbai

Expressway, in respect of which maximum work has been completed,

but for the stretch concerning Village - Bhoirgaon, Taluka - Bhiwandi,

District - Thane.

2. It would be necessary to briefly refer to the chronology of events,

in the backdrop of which the aforesaid competing claims made by the

parties are to be decided.

3. The petitioners are owners of some galas in Godown L1 located

at Village - Bhoirgaon, Taluka - Bhiwandi, District - Thane. The

petitioners have placed on record copies of Index-II and other such

documents to demonstrate their ownership in the respective galas.

According to the petitioners, when they came across a demolition drive

undertaken in respect of structures in the vicinity of Godown L1, they

became aware about the acquisition of lands undertaken by the

respondent No.4 - Competent Authority of the State for the purposes of

the said expressway. On further enquiries, the petitioners became aware

about the land acquisition award dated 24.11.2023, passed by the

Competent Authority for land acquisition in order to make land available

to the NHAI for construction of the said expressway as part of a

National Highway Project.

4. In this backdrop on 30.10.2025, the petitioners through their

advocates sent a representation to the respondent No.3 - Collector,

Thane, claiming rights under Section 94 of the Act of 2013. It was

submitted that since the petitioners are also owners of galas in Godown

L1, they have a right to raise objection under Section 94 of the Act of

2013, which stipulates that when a part of any house, manufactory or

2/31

WP16191_25.doc

building is acquired and the owner desires that the whole of such house,

manufactory or building should be acquired and if dispute arises in that

context, the Collector is bound to refer such dispute to the ‘Authority’ as

defined under Section 3(f) of the Act of 2013. It was claimed that since

the respondents had unilaterally acquired part of Godown L1 and steps

were sought to be taken for demolition of that part, which would

adversely affect the petitioners also, the process of demolition ought not

to be undertaken till the claim under Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is

decided.

5. On 19.11.2025, the petitioners, through their advocates, sent a

representation to the respondent No.2 - NHAI through its Project

Director, PIU Thane, claiming to be affected persons under Section 3-G

of the Highways Act. On this basis, they claimed compensation and

further submitted that before the process of demolition of adjoining

portion was undertaken, the rights of the petitioners under Section 3-G

of the Highways Act ought to be decided.

6. The petitioners claim that during this process, they came across

the impugned letter dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 -

NHAI through its Project Director, asserting that a report given by the

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)

Bombay demonstrated that dismantling part of Godown L1 would not

affect the overall structural stability, safety or integrity of the remaining

portion. According to the petitioners, this gave cause of action for them

to file the present petition in November 2025, praying for the reliefs

indicated hereinabove. The petitioners have invoked their constitutional

right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, amongst other

rights, in support of the prayers made in the petition.

7. On 11.12.2025, this Court heard the contentions raised on behalf

of the petitioners and took note of the specific contention raised under

3/31

WP16191_25.doc

Section 94 of the Act of 2013. This Court granted opportunity to the

respondents to file their reply affidavits. In the said order, a statement

was recorded on behalf of the respondent No.2 - NHAI that till the

adjourned date, the NHAI would not take any coercive measures. It is an

undisputed fact that the said statement continued to operate till the writ

petition was heard. While closing the petition for orders upon finally

hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on 03.02.2026, this Court

directed that the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondent

No.2 - NHAI would continue to operate till the pronouncement of

judgement in the petition.

8. The respondent No.2 - NHAI filed its reply affidavit, placing on

record a copy of the land acquisition award dated 24.11.2023. Reliance

was placed on the contents thereof to assert that sufficient notices were

issued as required under the provisions of the Highways Act and there

was no reason for the petitioners to claim ignorance about the proposed

acquisition. Reliance was also placed on the aforementioned report

forwarded by IIT Bombay on 22.09.2025, inter alia, recording that

acquisition of part of Godown L1 and its demolition would not adversely

affect the remaining portion. On the basis of the said report, it was

claimed that the petitioners can have no grievance. It was submitted that

Section 94 of the Act of 2013 cannot apply to the facts of the present

case. The petitioners filed rejoinder affidavit to refute the claims made

on behalf of the respondent No.2 - NHAI. Thereafter, on an order passed

by this Court, the respondent No.2 - NHAI filed an additional affidavit,

specifically stating that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 does not apply to

acquisitions under the Highways Act and that, in any case, the

petitioners are merely owners of independent galas within Godown L1

and they cannot claim any relief under the said provision. A map was

annexed to the said additional affidavit to bring to the notice of this

Court that the acquisition, in any case, affected only part of Godown L1

4/31

WP16191_25.doc

and that the galas belonging to the petitioners are clearly located outside

the affected portion.

9. Mr. S. B. Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners, being co-owners of the

‘building’ i.e. Godown L1, are clearly entitled to invoke Section 94 of

the Act of 2013. Before going into the interpretation of Section 94 of the

Act of 2013, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners

sought to dispel the impression created by the respondent No.2 - NHAI

that as per Section 105 of the Act of 2013, the provisions of the Act of

2013 do not apply to acquisitions under the Highways Act. It was

submitted that the Central Government had admittedly issued a

Notification dated 28.08.2015, exercising power under Section 105(3) of

the Act of 2013, directing that provisions relating to determination of

compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and

resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure

amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule to the Act of 2013 shall

apply to acquisitions under the Highways Act. It was submitted that even

if Section 94 of the Act of 2013 was not referred to in the Notification,

since any decision under Section 94 of the Act of 2013 concerns claim of

compensation of the claimants, it cannot be said that the petitioners are

prevented from invoking Section 94 of the Act of 2013.

10. On this basis, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that

being co-owners of some of the galas in one and the same building i.e.

Godown L1, the petitioners are clearly entitled to raise their desire that

the whole of the building i.e. Godown L1 must be acquired. If the

respondent No.2 - NHAI disputes the claim of the petitioners, as per

proviso to Section 94 of the Act of 2013, the respondent No.3 - Collector

is bound to refer such a question for determination of the ‘Authority’.

On this basis, it was submitted that since the aforesaid course of action

5/31

WP16191_25.doc

has not been followed in the present case, the petition deserves to be

allowed. It was submitted that any coercive action taken by the

respondent No.2 - NHAI, without resolution of the question posed on

behalf of the petitioners under Section 94 of the Act of 2013, would not

only violate the statutory right of the petitioners but it would also violate

their constitutional right to property under Section 300-A of the

Constitution of India.

11. It was submitted that the petitioners are ready for acquisition of

their property as they do not wish to obstruct the development activity

being undertaken by the respondent No.2 - NHAI, but their rights cannot

be trampled upon and it is only after their property is acquired and just

and fair compensation is paid that further action can be permitted on

behalf of the respondents.

12. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance was placed on the

judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and

others Vs. Reliance Industries Limited and others, (2017) 10 SCC 713,

as the said case dealt with Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘L.A. Act’). It was submitted that the only

difference between the said provision and Section 94 of the Act of 2013

is that, the question or dispute arising between parties, instead of being

referred to an Authority, was required to be referred to the Court. It was

submitted that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the said

judgement inured to the benefit of the petitioners.

13. Further, reliance was placed on the judgement of the Supreme

Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and

others, 2019 (9) SCC 304, contending that there cannot be

discrimination in the matter of acquisition, depending upon the

legislation under which land is being acquired. Reliance was also placed

on the judgement of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of

6/31

WP16191_25.doc

Saramma Itticheriya Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2008 (1) K.L.T. 6,

as also order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP

(Civil) Diary No.26933 of 2025 (M/s. Riar Builders Pvt. Ltd. and

another Vs. Union of India and others).

14. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor

General (ASG) appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - NHAI

submitted that there is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf

of the petitioners, inter alia, for the reason that Section 94 of the Act of

2013 is not available for persons, whose lands are acquired under the

Highways Act. In this regard, specific reliance was placed on Section

105 of the Act of 2013 read with the Fourth Schedule thereof, which, at

item 7, lists the Highways Act as one of the Statutes to which the

provisions of the Act of 2013 are not applicable. On this short ground, it

was submitted the petition deserves to be dismissed.

15. It was further submitted that the Notification dated 28.08.2015

issued by the Central Government under Section 105(3) of the Act of

2013, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners, for the reason that the

said Notification merely applies provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to

determination of compensation as per the First Schedule as also

rehabilitation and resettlement as per the Second Schedule and

infrastructural amenities as per the Third Schedule to the acquisitions

undertaken under the Highways Act. The aforesaid Notification does not

apply any other provisions of the Act of 2013 to the acquisitions under

the Highways Act, much less Section 94 thereof.

16. Apart from this, it was submitted that the acquisition proceeding

undertaken by the competent authority, as per the provisions of the

Highways Act, followed all the statutory requirements, including

issuance of Notifications under Section 3-A of the Highways Act, being

published in local newspapers, as also carrying out survey in terms of

7/31

WP16191_25.doc

Section 3-B thereof and granting hearing to persons interested for any

objections as per Section 3-C thereof. It was submitted that thereupon,

the Competent Authority pronounced the acquisition award, determining

compensation payable to all interested persons. It was submitted that the

petitioners never came forward to raise any objection, despite the public

notices. The persons, whose galas are directly affected in building i.e.

Godown L1, had taken necessary steps. The petitioners were throughout

aware about the acquisition proceedings, till the pronouncement of

award on 24.11.2023 and yet, they did not raise their claims at any point

in time.

17. It was submitted that after about 2 years of the award being

pronounced, the petitioners, for the first time in October 2025, submitted

their representation before respondent No.3 - Collector, invoking Section

94 of the Act of 2013 and in November 2025, they approached

respondent No.2 - NHAI, through its Project Director, claiming for the

first time that they were moving a representation under Section 3-G of

the Highways Act. For the aforesaid reason also, the petition does not

deserve any consideration before this Court.

18. The learned ASG specifically relied upon the report forwarded by

IIT, Bombay on 22.09.2025, to contend that there was no question of any

structural distress or adverse effect to the galas of the petitioners located

in that portion of the building i.e. Godown L1, which was not the subject

matter of acquisition. It was submitted that this Court in writ

jurisdiction, could not sit in appeal over the opinion of an expert body. It

was further submitted that in any case, Section 94 of the Act of 2013

would not apply to the facts pertaining to the present case. It was

submitted that even in the judgment of the Supreme Court, upon which

the petitioners have placed reliance i.e. State of Maharashtra and

others vs. Reliance Industries Limited and others (supra), it was

8/31

WP16191_25.doc

observed that in a building, when a particular floor can be sold, there

was no reason why a particular floor could not be acquired for public

purpose. On this basis, it was submitted that the said judgment does not

support the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. It was further

submitted that in the present case, the petitioners are owners of

independent galas and they cannot invoke Section 94 of the Act of 2013,

without prejudice to the submission made on behalf of respondent No.2 -

NHAI that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is not available for the

petitioners.

19. As regards the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in

the case of Saramma Itticheriya vs. State of Kerala and others

(supra), it was submitted that the same concerned Section 49 of the L.A.

Act and the findings rendered in the said judgment were limited to the

nature of controversy involved therein, which cannot have direct

application to the facts of the present case. As regards the order dated

13.01.2026 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Riar

Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others (supra),

it was submitted that in the said order, the Supreme Court observed that

the issue with regard to the alleged discrimination suffered by the land

owners, whose lands were acquired under the Highways Act, primarily

falls within the domain of the Legislature for which appropriate steps

could be taken.

20. On the other hand, reliance was placed on the orders passed by a

Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of NHAI vs. K.

Raveendran and others (orders dated 28.10.2024 and 18.02.2025 in

Writ Petition No.763 of 2024), to contend that no broad proposition of

law could be laid down that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is applicable

to acquisitions under the Highways Act.

21. Attention of this Court was invited to the additional affidavit filed

9/31

WP16191_25.doc

on behalf of respondent No.2 - NHAI and the map at Exhibit ‘A’

annexed thereto, to impress upon this Court that the petitioners are the

owners of independent galas situated clearly within that part of Godown

L1, which is wholly unaffected by the acquisition, thereby indicating

that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, particularly because of

the belated manner in which they have approached this Court. It was

submitted that the petitioners cannot claim any violation of their right to

property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, for the simple

reason that they are not being deprived of their rights without the

process of law being followed.

22. It was reiterated that the public notices were issued as per Section

3-A of the Highways Act, including in local newspapers. But, the

petitioners did not raise any objection that could have been heard under

Section 3-C of the Highways Act. The acquisition continued in

accordance with law, culminating into award dated 24.11.2023. After

about 2 years, the petitioners have rushed to this Court seeking relief,

which cannot be granted in the eyes of law. On this basis, it was

submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the

respondent No.2 - NHAI ought to be relieved from the statement made

on its behalf about refraining from taking coercive action in the matter. It

was asserted that in any case, the proposed action does not adversely

affect the interest of the petitioners at all and therefore, the writ petition

deserves to be dismissed.

23. Ms. Bane, learned AGP appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.3

and 4 and supported the contentions raised by the learned ASG.

24. In order to consider the rival submissions, particularly in the light

of the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners pertaining to

Section 94 of the Act of 2013, it would be appropriate to refer to some

admitted positions on facts.

10/31

WP16191_25.doc

25. The respondent No.4, being the competent authority for

undertaking the exercise of acquisition of land for the aforesaid

expressway, took steps in accordance with the provisions of the

Highways Act, in pursuance of issuance of statutory Notification under

Section 3-A of the Highways Act. There is no dispute about the fact that

the respondent No.4 as the competent authority undertook all necessary

steps for carrying out the exercise of acquisition of land. The record

shows that the Central Government issued Notification dated 18.12.2020

under Section 3-A of the Highways Act for acquisition of lands

including the land at Mauje - Bhoirgaon, Taluka - Bhiwandi, District -

Thane for the said expressway between Mumbai and Vadodara. There is

also no dispute about the fact that such Notification was published in

local newspapers, one of which was in Marathi language. Thereupon,

appropriate exercise of carrying out survey was undertaken under

Section 3-B of the Highways Act and opportunity of hearing objections

as per Notification issued under Section 3-A of the Highways Act was

granted in terms of Section 3-C thereof. It is recorded that no objection

was raised at that point in time. Thus, the petitioners did not respond to

such public notices being issued in local newspapers, including Marathi

newspaper 'Sakal' and English newspaper 'The Free Press Journal',

dated 16.01.2021.

26. Thereupon, declaration under Section 3-D of the Highways Act

was issued. As a consequence, the land proposed to be acquired vested

absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances. On

05.01.2022, notices were issued in Marathi newspaper 'Sakal' and

English newspaper 'The Free Press Journal' under Section 3-G(3) of the

Highways Act, calling upon all persons interested to raise their claims in

the context of the proposed acquisition of the land. Certain objections

were raised and demand was made for payment of appropriate

compensation. The objectors were informed that compensation shall be

11/31

WP16191_25.doc

paid in accordance with law and hence the said objections were also

accordingly dealt with. It is an admitted position that even at that stage,

the petitioners did not raise any claim or objection in response to the

public notices issued under Section 3-G(3) of the Highways Act.

27. The respondent No.4 - Competent Authority proceeded to

determine the quantum of compensation and pronounced the land

acquisition award on 24.11.2023. It was for the first time, on 30.10.2025,

almost two years after the land acquisition award was pronounced, that

the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 -

Collector, invoking Section 94 of the Act of 2013. They claimed that

they became aware about the land acquisition proceedings when they

noticed demolition of godowns / warehouses in the vicinity. Further, on

19.11.2025, the petitioners sent a representation, for the first time, to the

respondent No.2 - NHAI, purportedly under Section 3-G of the

Highways Act, claiming that their right to enjoy part of building i.e.

Godown L1 would be affected by the acquisition, further claiming that

their easementary rights were likely to be affected. On this basis, it was

claimed that they had a right to compensation. They further requested for

refraining from demolishing part of Godown L1, till their claim of

compensation was decided. Thereafter in November 2025, the

petitioners filed the present writ petition, challenging the aforesaid

communication dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 -

NHAI, wherein the said respondent had expressed its intention to

proceed with dismantling of godowns, that were coming in the right of

way (ROW) so that the work of the expressway could proceed further.

The petitioners invoked Section 94 of the Act of 2013 and stated that

they were desirous that the entire building i.e. Godown L1 should be

acquired, and that till that time, status-quo be maintained. The

petitioners have also invoked Article 300-A of the Constitution of India,

claiming that their right to property is being violated and that therefore,

12/31

WP16191_25.doc

they are entitled to appropriate relief from this Court.

28. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India provides that no person

shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. The right

protected under the said Article obviously requires that if a person is to

be deprived of property, he or she has to be compensated in accordance

with law. If the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are to be

accepted then this Court will have to reach a conclusion that their rights

have been violated, amounting to depriving them of their properties,

without the authority of law. The admitted position on facts, referred to

hereinabove, does show that the respondents followed all the

requirements of law as per the provisions of the Highways Act under

which the subject acquisition was undertaken and appropriate

opportunities were available for all interested persons to raise their

objections and their claims while the process of acquisition was

undertaken. It cannot be said that the respondents, in the facts of the

present case, proceeded to acquire the land without following the

procedure laid down in the Highways Act.

29. To that extent, we do not find any fault on the part of the

respondents and on the contrary, we find that the petitioners failed to

avail of the opportunities when Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the

Highways Act was published in English and Marathi newspapers, as far

back as on 16.01.2021. They also failed to avail of the opportunity to

raise their claims when notices under Section 3-G(3) of the Highways

Act were published in Marathi and English newspapers on 05.01.2022. It

cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioners that they were blissfully

unaware about the proposed acquisition of part of building i.e. Godown

L1, in respect of which exercise pertaining to survey, measurements, etc.

was also undertaken, along with all other such godowns and structures,

in the vicinity, coming in the ROW. The process of determination of

13/31

WP16191_25.doc

compensation by the Competent Authority commenced from 18.12.2020

when the Notification was issued under Section 3-A(1) of the Highways

Act and it continued and culminated in the aforesaid award dated

24.11.2023. It is not believable that all through this period of about three

years, the petitioners were not aware about the steps taken by the

Competent Authority as per the requirements of the Highways Act under

which the acquisition was being undertaken. Even thereafter, for a

period of almost about two years, the petitioners did not care to take any

step towards raising their claims. In the meantime, as informed by the

respondent No.2 - NHAI, major portion of work of the aforesaid

expressway was completed and when it came to the stage of demolition

of part of the said building i.e. Godown L1, suddenly the petitioners

were galvanized into sending their representations, invoking Section 94

of the Act 2013 and also their purported claims under Section 3G of the

Highways Act. There was not a whisper in the representations as to why

the petitioners failed to respond to the publication of Notification and

notices, as statutorily required under the Highways Act, to raise their

objections or claims. It was merely stated that when demolitions

commenced in the vicinity, the petitioners became aware about the

acquisition pertaining to the construction of the expressway.

30. We are not convinced by the explanation given by the petitioners

about their failure in responding to the opportunities repeatedly granted

in the public domain by the Competent Authority as per the requirements

of the Highways Act. In fact, there is no explanation on record, other

than stating that the petitioners gathered knowledge only when

demolition was undertaken in the vicinity. It is in this backdrop that the

contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are required to be

considered.

31. The foremost contention raised on behalf of the petitioners

14/31

WP16191_25.doc

pertains to Section 94 of the Highways Act. It is claimed that since the

petitioners are the co-owners of the building i.e. Godown L1 as they

own certain galas therein, they are entitled to invoke Section 94 of the

Highways Act to express their desire that the entire building i.e. Godown

L1 be acquired and that the detailed procedure prescribed under the said

provision be followed. It was further claimed that until the procedure

reaches finality, the respondents must maintain status-quo. The

respondents have raised serious objection to the applicability of Section

94 of the Highways Act to the acquisition in the present case by relying

upon Section 105 of the Act of 2013 read with the Fourth Schedule. It is

submitted that although under Section 105(3) of the Highways Act, the

Central Government has indeed issued Notification dated 28.08.2015,

specifically applying the First, Second and Third Schedules of the Act of

2013 to the acquisitions even under the Highways Act, since the said

Schedules pertain only to the manner of determining compensation as

also rehabilitation and resettlement along with infrastructure amenities,

Section 94 of the Act of 2013 covered under the Chapter of

Miscellaneous Provisions cannot apply to the acquisitions under the

Highways Act.

32. The petitioners seek to counter the said contention by claiming

that since Section 94 of the Act of 2013 ultimately pertains to the

concept of compensation payable, there could be no impediment in

applicability of the same to the acquisitions under the Highways Act. In

this context, rival submissions were made with regard to the definition

of 'person interested' in the Act of 2013, as also other provisions along

with relevant provisions of the Highways Act. Before examining the

rival contentions, it would be appropriate that the relevant provisions of

the Highways Act and the Act of 2013 are reproduced.

33. The relevant provisions of the Highways Act read as follows:-

15/31

WP16191_25.doc

“3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise

requires,-

(a) …

(b) “land” includes benefits to arise out of land and

things attached to the earth or permanently fastened

to anything attached to the earth.

3-A. Power to acquire land, etc.--(1) Where the Central

Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is

required for the building, maintenance, management or

operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by

notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to

acquire such land.

(2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief

description of the land.

(3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the

notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of

which will be in a vernacular language.

3-B. Power to enter for survey, etc.--On the issue of a

notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A, it shall be

lawful for any person, authorised by the Central Government in

this behalf, to--

(a) make any inspection, survey, measurement, valuation

or enquiry;

(b) take levels;

(c) dig or bore into sub-soil;

(d) set out boundaries and intended lines of work;

(e) mark such levels, boundaries and lines placing marks

and cutting trenches; or

(f) do such other acts or things as may be laid down by

rules made in this behalf by that Government.

3-C. Hearing of objections.--(1) Any person interested in the

land may, within twenty-one days from the date of publication

of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A, object to

the use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in

that sub-section.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made

to the competent authority in writing and shall set out the

grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the

objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a

legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and

after making such further enquiry, it any, as the competent

16/31

WP16191_25.doc

authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow

the objections.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-section,

"legal practitioner" has the same meaning as in clause (i) of

sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of

1961).

(3) Any order made by the competent authority under

sub-section (2) shall be final.

3-D. Declaration of acquisition.--(1) Where no objection

under sub-section (1) of section 3C has been made to the

competent authority within the period specified therein or

where the competent authority has disallowed the objection

under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent authority

shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the

Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central

Government shall declare, by notification in the Official

Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or

purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A.

(2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-

section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central

Government free from all encumbrances.

(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been

published under sub-section (1) of section 3A for its acquisition

but no declaration under sub-section (1) has been published

within a period of one year from the date of publication of that

notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect:

Provided that in computing the said period of one year,

the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to

be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-

section (1) of section 3A is stayed by an order of a court shall

be excluded.

(4) A declaration made by the Central Government

under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any

court or by any other authority.

* * * * *

3-G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.--

(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be

paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the

competent authority.

(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an

easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be

paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right

17/31

WP16191_25.doc

of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner

whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated

at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1),

for that land.

(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-

section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall

give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of

which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all

persons interested in the land to be acquired.

(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and

shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in

person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in

sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at

a time and place and to state the nature of their respective

interest in such land.

(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority

under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to

either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by

either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be

appointed by the Central Government.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall

apply to every arbitration under this Act.

(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while

determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section

(5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration--

(a) the market value of the land on the date of

publication of the notification under section 3A;

(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person

interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by

reason of the severing of such land from other land;

(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person

interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by

reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other

immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;

(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land,

the person interested is compelled to change his residence or

place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to

such change.”

34. The relevant provisions of the Act of 2013 read as follows:-

“3.Definition.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise

requires,-

18/31

WP16191_25.doc

(a) to (w) …

(x) ‘person interested’ means -

(i) all persons claiming an interest in

compensation to be made on account of

the acquisition of land under this Act;

(ii) the Scheduled Tribes and other

traditional forest dwellers, who have

lost any forest rights recognised under

the Scheduled Tribes and Other

Traditional Forest Dwellers

(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,

2006 (2 of 2007);

(iii) a person interested in an easement

affecting the land;

(iv) persons having tenancy rights under the

relevant State laws including share-

croppers by whatever name they may

be called; and

(v) any person whose primary source of

livelihood is likely to be adversely

affected;

28. Parameters to be considered by Collector in

determination of award.- In determining the amount of

compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act,

the Collector shall take into consideration—

firstly, the market value as determined under

section 26 and the award amount in accordance with the

First and Second Schedules;

secondly, the damage sustained by the person

interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops

and trees which may be on the land at the time of the

Collector's taking possession thereof;

thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the

person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking

possession of the land, by reason of severing such land

from his other land;

fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the

person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking

possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition

injuriously affecting his other property, movable or

immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;

fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the

land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled

19/31

WP16191_25.doc

to change his residence or place of business, the

reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change;

sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting

from diminution of the profits of the land between the

time of the publication of the declaration under section

19 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of

the land; and

seventhly, any other ground which may be in the

interest of equity, justice and beneficial to the affected

families.

94. Acquisition of part of house or building.

(1) The provisions of this Act shall not be put in force for

the purpose of acquiring a part only of any house, manufactory

or other building, if the owner desires that the whole of such

house, manufactory or building shall be so acquired:

Provided that, if any question shall arise as to whether

any land proposed to be taken under this Act does or does not

form part of a house, manufactory or building within the

meaning of this section, the Collector shall refer the

determination of such question to the Authority concerned and

shall not be taken possession of such land until after the

question has been determined.

(2) In deciding on such a reference made under the proviso

to sub-section (1), the Authority concerned shall have regard to

the question whether the land proposed to be taken, is

reasonably required for the full and unimpaired use of the

house, manufactory or building.

(3) If, in the case of any claim under this Act, by a person

interested, on account of the severing of the land to be acquired

from his other land, the appropriate Government is of opinion

that the claim is unreasonable or excessive, it may, at any time

before the Collector has made his award, order the acquisition

of the whole of the land of which the land first sought to be

acquired forms a part.

(4) In the case of any acquisition of land so required no fresh

declaration or other proceedings under sections 11 to 19, (both

inclusive) shall be necessary; but the Collector shall without

delay furnish a copy of the order of the appropriate Government

to the person interested, and shall thereafter proceed to make his

award under section 23.”

105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or

to apply with certain modifications.- (1) Subject to sub-

20/31

WP16191_25.doc

section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the

enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth

Schedule.

(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central

Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the

enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within

one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that

any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of

compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and

rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and

Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall

apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments

specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such

exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the

compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to

compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be

specified in the notification, as the case may be.

(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under

sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of

Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days

which may be comprised in one session or in two or more

successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session

immediately following the session or the successive sessions

aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the issue of the

notification or both Houses agree in making any modification in

the notification, the notification shall not be issued or, as the

case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may

be agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament.”

35. Relevant portion of the Notification dated 28.08.2015 issued by

the Central Government under Section 105(3) of the Highways Act reads

as follows:-

“ Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 113 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), the

Central Government hereby makes the following Order to

remove the aforesaid difficulties, namely:-

1. (1) This Order may be called the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties)

Order, 2015.

21/31

WP16191_25.doc

(2) It shall come into force with effect from the 1

st

day of September, 2015.

2. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013, relating to the determination of

compensation in accordance with the First Schedule,

rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second

Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the

Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under

the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the said

Act.”

36. Proper reading of the definitions of 'person interested' and 'land' in

the Act of 2013 and the Highways Act respectively, in conjunction with

Section 3-G(3) and (4) of the Highways Act shows that the petitioners

should have responded to the public notices issued by the Competent

Authority in Marathi and English newspapers, both, at the stage of

making public the Notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Highways

Act and also public notices as per Section 3-G(3) thereof. If the

petitioners claimed that although their galas, forming part of building

i.e. Godown L1, were not being acquired and yet their interest would be

adversely affected, they should have responded to the public notices.

But, they failed to do so. In such a situation, they are not entitled to

claim that their interests are being adversely affected without proper

procedure being followed.

37. As noted hereinabove, the petitioners invoked Section 3-G of the

Highways Act almost two years after the award was pronounced and

when the respondents proceeded to take consequential steps concerning

building and construction of the expressway, with a large portion thereof

already having been constructed. In the facts and circumstances of the

present case, it cannot be said that the process of acquisition has been

undertaken without proper procedure being followed.

38. As regards the invocation of Section 94 of the Act of 2013, again

22/31

WP16191_25.doc

after almost two years, we are unable to accept the contention raised on

behalf of the petitioners that the said provision would be applicable to

acquisitions undertaken as per the Highways Act. Section 94 of the Act

of 2013 is one of the provisions found in the Chapter pertaining to

Miscellaneous Provisions and even the above-quoted Notification dated

28.08.2015 issued by the Central Government does not specifically state

that the said provision is made applicable to acquisitions under the

Highways Act. It is to be noted that the Notification carves out specific

exceptions to the general rule under the Act of 2013 that its provisions

do not apply to acquisitions under the Highways Act. The exceptions

carved out under the Notification dated 28.08.2015 have to be read

strictly. As noted hereinabove, they pertain only to the First, Second and

Third Schedules to the Act of 2013, concerning determination of

compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement as also infrastructure

amenities. In other words, only the provisions and principles pertaining

to the said aspects of the matter apply to persons entitled to relief under

the Highways Act. The principles, pertaining to determination of

compensation, as indicated in the Act of 2013, apply to persons whose

lands are acquired under the Highways Act.

39. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgement

of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs.

Tarsem Singh and others (supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court

reiterated the position of law recognized in its earlier judgements in the

cases of P. Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs. Special Deputy Collector for Land

Acquisition, AIR 1965 SC 1017 and Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs.

Vithal Rao, 1973 (1) SCC 500, to the effect that allowing different

principles and yardsticks for determining the quantum of compensation

depending upon the Statute under which the acquisition was undertaken,

would amount to discrimination. It was reiterated that the landowner,

whose land is acquired, suffers the same fate, particularly during

23/31

WP16191_25.doc

compulsory acquisition, notwithstanding the purpose for which the land

is acquired or the Statute under which such acquisition takes place. It is

in this context that the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and

another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra) held that solatium and

interest would be payable to the landowners whose lands are acquired

under the Highways Act also.

40. The whole discussion and reference to the aforesaid Notification

dated 28.08.2015 issued by the Central Government under Section

105(3) of the Act of 2014 in the aforesaid judgement pertained to

uniformity with regard to the principles concerning determination of

quantum of compensation payable to the landowners. While referring to

the provisions of the Highways Act, the Supreme Court in the said

judgement in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem

Singh and others (supra) observed that one of the objects of the

amendments brought about in the Highways Act in 1997 was speedy

acquisition of lands for the purpose of national highways. We find that if

the said object is taken into consideration, while there cannot be any

discrimination with regard to applicability of principles for determining

quantum of compensation payable to land owners, any and every

provision of the Act of 2013 cannot be made applicable to acquisitions

under the Highways Act and it would also operate in the teeth of Section

105 of the Act of 2013 itself, read with the Fourth Schedule.

41. We find that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is a miscellaneous

provision available in the aforesaid general Statute pertaining to

acquisition. The procedure prescribed under the said provision i.e.

Section 94 of the Act of 2013, necessarily entails reference by the

Collector to the ‘authority’ on a question arising upon claim made by the

land owner for acquiring the whole house, manufactory or other

building, which would obviously be time-taking and till the

24/31

WP16191_25.doc

determination of the question, the possession of the land cannot be

taken.

42. We are unable to agree that although Section 105 of the Act of

2013 read with the Fourth Schedule thereof expressly excludes

application of the provisions of the Act of 2013 to acquisitions under the

Highways Act and only specific exceptions have been carved out by the

Notification dated 28.08.2015 issued by the Central Government under

Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013, we can stretch the applicability of

other provisions not specified in the said Notification, including Section

94 of the Act of 2013. Much emphasis was placed on behalf of the

petitioners on the assertion that since a decision on Section 94 of the Act

of 2013 would ultimately have an effect on compensation, this Court

ought to hold that the said provision can be made applicable even to

acquisitions under the Highways Act. We are unable to accept the said

contention for the reason that the exceptions carved out by the

Notification dated 28.08.2015 issued by the Central Government are

specific and they pertain only to the First, Second and Third Schedules,

providing for determination of quantum of compensation and other such

reliefs available to persons affected by the process of acquisition.

43. In the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh

and others (supra) also, the Supreme Court emphasized that when it

comes to determination of compensation to be paid to affected persons

due to acquisition of lands, there ought not to be any discrimination

against landowners whose lands are acquired under the Highways Act.

Section 94 of the Act of 2013 concerns the claim of owner of a house,

manufactory or other building who expresses his or her desire for

acquisition of the entirety of such structure. But, it has nothing to do

with the principles for determining the quantum of compensation

including factors such as interest, solatium, etc. As noted hereinabove,

25/31

WP16191_25.doc

the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs.

Tarsem Singh and others (supra) specifically took into consideration

the object for which the Highways Act was amended in the year 1997

i.e. speedy acquisition of lands for the purpose of national highways. It

was held that factors such as interest and solatium, while determining

the quantum of compensation had no relation to the said object, and

therefore, the landowners whose lands are acquired under the Highways

Act cannot be discriminated against, even if the object of introducing the

provisions pertaining to acquisition of lands in the Highways Act, is

taken into consideration. Thus, the entire emphasis while dealing with

the argument pertaining to discrimination in the case of Union of India

and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra) was on

determination of the quantum of compensation.

44. If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is accepted,

the specific statutory mandate in Section 105 of the Act of 2013 read

with the Fourth Schedule, as also read with the Notification dated

28.08.2015 issued by the Central Government, would be rendered

meaningless if provisions other than those specified in the Notification

are casually made applicable to acquisitions under the Highways Act.

Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding

applicability of Section 94 of the Act of 2013 to the acquisitions under

the Highways Act, is rejected. As a consequence, the other arguments

advanced on behalf of the petitioners on the basis that Section 94 of the

Act of 2013 is applicable to their case, do not deserve consideration.

45. In this context, we find that the Division Bench of Kerala High

Court in the case of NHAI vs. K. Raveendran and others (supra) also

proceeded on the basis that there cannot be any absolute proposition of

law that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is mandatory and binds the

authorities concerning national highways and the competent authorities

26/31

WP16191_25.doc

while undertaking acquisition under the Highways Act. The petitioners

have placed reliance on the judgement of Full Bench of Kerala High

Court in the case of Saramma Itticheriya vs. State of Kerala and

others (supra). It pertains to Section 49 of the L.A. Act, which is similar

to Section 94 of the Act of 2013. But, the findings rendered therein,

including the finding that if desire is expressed by the owner of an entire

building for acquisition and the same is not acceptable to the acquiring

body then the only option available is to withdraw from the acquisition,

is based on a situation where Section 49 is found to be applicable. In the

light of our finding hereinabove that Section 94 of the Act of 2013 does

not apply to the case of the petitioners, the said judgement can be of no

avail to the petitioners.

46. We also find that reliance placed on behalf of the petitioners on

the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of

Maharashtra and others Vs. Reliance Industries Limited and others

(supra) can also not take their case much further. In the said case also,

the Court was concerned with Section 49 of the L.A. Act. The petitioners

have relied upon certain observations made in the said judgement on the

basis of the language of Section 49 of the L.A. Act. But, it is relevant to

note that in the very same judgement, the Supreme Court has also

observed that when flats can be sold independently, obviously, they can

be acquired also. It is relevant to note that, in the present case, even as

per the case of the petitioners themselves, they are the owners of

independent galas in building i.e. Godown L1 and it is not even their

case that they are the owners of the entire building. Thus, the said

judgement can also not come to the aid of the petitioners.

47. As regards reliance on the order passed by the Supreme Court on

13.01.2026 in the case of M/s. Riar Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another vs.

Union of India and others (supra), the observations made therein

27/31

WP16191_25.doc

demonstrate the concern of the Court with regard to rights of landowners

as regards determination of quantum of compensation. In the said order,

in paragraph 12, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that primarily

the issue falls within the domain of Legislature and hence, the Court

refrained from expressing any final opinion in the matter. We find that

the manner in which acquisition of lands under the Highways Act was

being undertaken and landowners were being discriminated against to

the extent of deprivation of interest and solatium while determining the

quantum of compensation, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of

India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra) has laid down

the law in clear terms. As noted hereinabove, the said position of law

clarifies that, when the question of determination of quantum of

compensation arises, there can be no double standards.

48. We have already noted hereinabove that the petitioners failed to

respond to the Notification under Section 3A(1) and also notices under

Section 3G(3) of the Highways Act being published in the newspapers.

To that extent, we find that no fault can be found with the respondent

authorities in going ahead with the process of acquisition and passing the

award dated 24.11.2023. We also find that the authorities cannot be

restrained from proceeding ahead with taking possession of the lands

and buildings acquired, for which compensation has been determined

under the said award. The construction of Vadodara Mumbai

Expressway cannot be stalled at the behest of the petitioners, who have

chosen to approach the authorities after almost two years of the

acquisition award being passed.

49. Yet, as a Writ Court, we find that if the petitioners can be said to

be ‘persons interested’, although their property has not been acquired,

their grievance cannot be completely ignored, even though belatedly

raised, of being reasonably compensated in the event they are able to

28/31

WP16191_25.doc

demonstrate that their rights have been affected. In this context, the

definition of ‘affected family’ under Section 3(c) of the Act of 2013 and

particularly clause (vi) thereof is relevant, which reads as follows:-

“3(c) ‘affected family’ includes-

(i) to (v) …

(vi) a family residing on any land in the urban areas

for preceding three years or more prior to the acquisition of the

land or whose primary source of livelihood for three years

prior to the acquisition of the land is affected by the acquisition

of such land;”

50. The definition of ‘person interested’ as per Section 3(x) of the Act

of 2013, has already been quoted hereinabove. Clause (v) thereof

includes any person whose primary source of livelihood is likely to be

adversely affected. It is relevant to note that Section 28 of the Act of

2013, pertaining to parameters to be considered by the Collector in

determination of award (quoted hereinabove), refers to various situations

in respect of damage sustained by a person interested by the act of taking

possession of the land and clause 7 thereof refers to any other ground,

which may be in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial to affected

families. The same is a ground for consideration while determining the

amount of compensation. Section 3-G(2) of the Highways Act, also

quoted hereinabove, specifically refers to the right of user or any right in

the nature of an easement being affected and it provides for payment of

an amount to the person whose enjoyment of such right is affected by

the acquisition. Considering the aforementioned provisions of the Act of

2013 and the Highways Act, particularly because they are relevant for

determining the quantum of compensation, we are of the opinion that the

right of the petitioners to that limited extent can be considered and

examined by the Competent Authority. Consideration of such right of the

petitioners and thereupon determination of quantum of compensation, if

any, can be undertaken without, in any manner, restraining the

respondent No.2 - NHAI from proceeding to take possession of the

29/31

WP16191_25.doc

acquired lands and buildings and facilitating speedy construction of the

national highway.

51. In this context, reference to the report submitted by IIT, Bombay,

dated 22.09.2025, pertaining to the subject building i.e. Godown L1

shows that while it is opined that the structural stability of the remaining

portion of the building with which the petitioners are concerned would

not be adversely affected, at the same time, there is reference to integrity

of the building requiring certain degree of rework. We cannot sit in

appeal over the findings given by an expert body like the IIT. But, at the

same time, when the Competent Authority considers the claim of the

petitioners for being reasonably compensated for their rights, if any, with

regard to their business being adversely affected, the report of IIT can be

taken into consideration and opportunity can also be granted to the

petitioners to place their own material on record while raising their

claims for compensation payable, if any, due to the alleged adverse

effect on their right to user of their respective galas. We are not

expressing any opinion, either way, on that aspect of the matter.

52. In view of the discussion hereinabove, although we find that the

reliefs claimed by the petitioners in this petition by relying upon Section

94 of the Act of 2013 cannot be granted and that the respondent

authorities proceeded in accordance with law while undertaking the

process of acquisition, to the limited extent indicated hereinabove, the

petitioners can be granted relief of consideration of their claim of

adverse effect on their right of user of their respective galas due to

acquisition and demolition of part of the building i.e. Godown L1.

53. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following

terms:-

A. The contention of the petitioners seeking relief by relying

upon Section 94 of the Act of 2013 is rejected as it is held

30/31

WP16191_25.doc

that the said provision is not applicable to the case of the

petitioners;

B. The petitioners are permitted to approach the competent

authority for consideration of their claim of adverse effect

on their business and right of user, if any, due to acquisition

and demolition of the acquired part of the building i.e.

Godown L1;

C. The respondent No.4 - Competent Authority is directed to

consider the claim of the petitioners limited to the extent

indicated hereinabove in accordance with law. Accordingly,

the respondent No.4 - Competent Authority shall complete

the exercise within a period of six months from today. This

Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the

claim of the petitioners;

D. It is made clear that the aforesaid exercise, to be carried out

by the respondent No.4 - Competent Authority, shall not be

an impediment or come in the way of the respondent No.2 -

NHAI to proceed with taking physical possession and

demolishing the acquired part of building i.e. Godown L1

for speedy construction of Vadodara Mumbai Expressway;

E. The respondent No.2 - NHAI is relieved of the statement

made on its behalf, as recorded in the order dated

11.12.2025;

54. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

31/31

Minal / Priya

MINAL

SANDIP

PARAB

Digitally signed

by MINAL

SANDIP PARAB

Date: 2026.02.24

14:35:44 +0530