The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in a significant ruling delivered on 4th May, 2026, allowed a writ petition filed by landowners whose compensation for acquisition of land for National Highway construction had been withheld by the State authorities despite the award being duly adjudicated. The Court directed the respondents to disburse Rs. 3,35,40,000/- preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
The petitioners are the lawful owners of land bearing Khasra Nos. 136/5/1/1 and 136/5/2/1 situated at Sohagpur, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. Their land was originally left out of the bulk acquisition undertaken for the construction of the National Highway connecting Umariya to Shahdol. Subsequently, upon realization that the land was required for the project, it was acquired as a "missing plot" under the mutual consent acquisition policy in terms of the Circular dated 15.03.2016 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The competent authority duly assessed and adjudicated compensation of Rs. 3,35,40,000/-. The proposal for payment was forwarded to authorities on 02.01.2026. Despite repeated representations by the petitioners dated 05.01.2023 and 11.04.2026, no disbursement was made, compelling them to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioners contended that once the land was acquired and compensation duly determined, the respondents were under a mandatory legal obligation to release it without delay. It was argued that the right to receive compensation for acquired land is an integral facet of the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and withholding it amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law.
Respondents (State) admitted that the compensation had been determined and the proposal forwarded to higher authorities, but attributed the delay to administrative formalities and procedural compliance requirements, asserting the delay was not deliberate.
The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak & Justice B.P. Sharma of MP High Court made sharp and constitutionally significant observations:
- Once acquisition is complete and compensation duly determined, the State is under a bounden duty to ensure prompt payment; any delay defeats the statutory scheme and causes grave prejudice to landowners.
- The right to compensation is not a mere statutory entitlement but a constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A, and withholding it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- The very objective of the mutual consent acquisition policy — to avoid delays and disputes — stands frustrated if landowners who consented to acquisition are made to wait indefinitely.
- Administrative inefficiencies and procedural delays cannot override the constitutional rights of the petitioner-landowners.
- Once the State itself has quantified the compensation and forwarded the proposal, there remains no justification whatsoever for withholding the amount.
The Court has grounded its reasoning firmly on Article 300-A (right to property as a constitutional right) and Article 14 (right against arbitrary State action) of the Constitution of India, reinforcing the well-settled principle that land acquisition without timely compensation is constitutionally impermissible.
Case Details
Case No.:Writ Petition No. 15538 of 2026
Bench: Justice Anand Pathak & Justice B.P. Sharma
Petitioner: Smt. Shanti Singh and Others
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Picture Source :