[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
National Highway Authority Of India vs Shankar Singh Kothari on 16 April, 2026
1/8
2026:CGHC:17378
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 121 of 2022
1. National Highway Authority Of India Through Project Director,
National Highway No. 6, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, House
No. 5196, Behind Bti College , Shankar Nagar, Raipur 492001, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by
2. Project Director National Highway Authority Of India, Project
JYOTI
JYOTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.04.17
10:47:49
+0530 Implementation Unit, Raipur, House No. 5196, Behind BTI College ,
Shankar Nagar, Raipur 492001, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. Shankar Singh Kothari S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kothari Aged About 53
Years R/o Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways New Delhi.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Competent Authority For
Land Acquisition Officer National Highway Acquisition Rajnandgaon,
District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Shweta Rai on behalf of Mr. Ramakant
Mishra, DSGI
For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A.
State
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
16/04/2026
1. The review petitioner NHAI (respondent in WPC) seeks review
of the order dated 07.03.2022 passed in WPC No. 1286 of 2018
on the ground that CALA (Competent Authority for Land Acquisition )
cannot modify the award once passed.
2. The writ petition bearing WPC No. 1286 of 2018 was preferred
by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein), for issuance of
appropriate direction to the concerned authority for payment of
amount of compensation as determined vide award dated
21.12.2017 in the Land Acquisition Case No. 1A-82/2016-17. It
was further stated that the land belonging to the petitioner was
acquired by respondent/ NHAI for the purpose of widening and
upgradation of National Highway No.06. Land acquisition
proceeding was initiated, in which the award dated 21.12.2017
was passed granting compensation of Rs. 1,06,49,302/- for the
acquired land & property and Rs.15,93,644/-for rehabilitation
and settlement but no amount of compensation was paid to the
petitioner.
3. The said petition was disposed off by this court vide order dated
07.03.2022, which is sought to be reviewed, in the following
terms :
"7. Hence, there being no such power of review
available to the respondent No.4, a request if any
that has been made by the respondent No.1, 2 and
3 is without any consequence and that does not
lead to any lawful remedy. Therefore, the award
dated 21.12.2017 that has been passed in this case
in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.4 is
subject to compliance by the respondent No.1, 2
and
8. Hence, on the basis of the discussions made
hereinabove, this petition is allowed and disposed
off at the motion stage. The respondent No.1, 2 and
3 are directed to make payment of the
compensation as determined by the respondent
No.4 in award dated 21.12.2017 within a time limit
of 90 days from today and on deposition of such
compensation amount, the respondent No.4 is
directed to make disbursement of the
compensation amount to the petitioner at the
earliest.
9. With these directions, the petition is disposed
off."
4. (a) Now the present review has been filed by the
petitioner/NHAI and submits that the order dated 07.03.2022
passed in W.P.C. No. 1286 of 2018 suffers from an error
apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. It is contended that in
paragraph 3 of the said order, has erroneously recorded that the
petitioner NHAI has sought review of the award dated
21.12.2017 vide letter dated 25.01.2018, whereas in fact no
such request for review was ever made. It is further submitted
that the letter dated 25.01.2018 merely pointed out defects in
the award dated 21.12.2017 and sought re-examination and
issuance of a legally valid award, which is distinct from seeking
a review. He further submits that under the National Highways
Act, 1956, the CALA has no power of review, and once an
award is passed, the authority becomes functus officio.
Therefore, the subsequent award dated 21.12.2017, being in the
nature of a review of the earlier award dated 20.07.2017, is
without jurisdiction, illegal, and a nullity in the eyes of law. It is
further contended that the power of review is not inherent and
must be conferred by statute expressly or by necessary
implication. In the absence of any such provision, any exercise
of review jurisdiction is ultra vires. The legal position in this
regard is well settled.
(b) Learned counsel also submits that this Court has failed to
consider the relevant material on record, including the letter
dated 29.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways, which mandates that compensation under the
National Highways Act is to be determined in accordance with
Schedule I of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from a
manifest error apparent on the face of the record, the detection
of which does not require elaborate reasoning. If allowed to
stand, it would result in grave miscarriage of justice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (writ
petitioner) submits that the present review petition is wholly
misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed, as no
ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is made out. It is
contended that the order dated 07.03.2022 passed in W.P.(C)
No. 1286 of 2018 does not suffer from any error apparent on the
face of the record. It is further submitted that the contention of
the review petitioner/NHAI that the Court misconstrued the letter
dated 25.01.2018 is incorrect. On the contrary, the said
observation was based on the specific stand taken by the review
petitioner itself in its reply filed in the writ petition, wherein it was
categorically stated that the said letter was written to the CALA
seeking review of the award dated 21.12.2017. Thus, the review
petitioner is now taking a contradictory stand, which is
impermissible in law. Learned counsel submits that the grounds
raised in the review petition are merely an attempt to re-argue
the case on merits, which is beyond the limited scope of review
jurisdiction. No new evidence has been brought on record, nor is
there any manifest error apparent requiring interference. It is
also contended that the award dated 21.12.2017 was never
challenged by the review petitioner under the provisions of the
National Highways Act, 1956, and therefore, the same has
attained finality and is binding upon the parties. The alleged plea
regarding lack of power of review is not applicable to the facts of
the present case, as no review of the award was undertaken,
but only clarifications were incorporated. In view of the above, it
is submitted that the present review petition is not maintainable,
being an abuse of the process of law, and deserves to be
dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
7. In view of the submissions made as the dispute was regarding
seeking modification by NHAI vide its communication dated
25.01.2018, however, as per the NHAI, they have not received
any response pursuant to this letter from the CALA. This court
vide order dated 09.02.2026 directed the State to file affidavit
stating the action taken and the response given to NHAI on its
communication dated 25.01.2018. In compliance of the court
order the affidavit dated 09.03.2026 has been filed along with
the necessary documents.
8. Perusal of the affidavit shows that in reply of the communication
dated 25.01.2018, the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
and Land Acquisition Officer, Rajnandgaon, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.) has already issued a memo on 04.05.2018
to the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit, Behind BTI College, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh whereby, the objection raised in the
aforesaid communication letter dated 25.01.2018, have already
been replied along with the calculation sheet in accordance with
Schedule-I.
9. Further, the perusal of the order sheet dated 30.03.2026 reflects
that the NHAI is ready to comply with the award passed by the
CALA but sought clarification regarding the interest part and
thus the CALA and the NHAI were directed to file affidavit stating
whether the communication dated 04.05.2018 and the
calculation sheet is inclusive of the interest from 06.04.2016 as
narrated in the award dated 21.12.2017 annexed at page 56 or
not.
10. In compliance of order dated 30.03.2026, the NHAI has filed its
affidavit on 16.04.2026 stating whether the communication dated
04.05.2018 and the calculation sheet include interest from
06.04.2016 as per the award dated 21.12.2017. Perusal of the
same shows that the NHAI addressed a letter dated 01.04.2026
to the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA)
requesting inclusion of interest in the award dated 04.05.2018.
Thereafter, a reminder dated 13.04.2026 was also sent;
however, no response has been received from the said authority.
The petitioner submits that it is undisputed that the landowners
are entitled to interest in accordance with law. Upon perusal of
the award dated 04.05.2018, it is evident that the component of
interest has not been included therein. Hence, the
NHAI/petitioner has requested the CALA to incorporate the
interest component so that the payment of the same may be
duly made to the respondent/landowner.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any
error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The grounds raised by the
review petitioner/NHAI essentially seek re-appreciation of the
issues already considered and decided by this Court while
passing the order dated 07.03.2022, which is impermissible in
the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
12.It is noteworthy to mention here that the respondent/landowner
cannot be made to suffer on account of any inter se
communication gap or administrative lapses between the
authorities, particularly when the land has already been
acquired. The obligation to pay just compensation, along with
statutory interest, is absolute, and any delay in disbursement on
account of internal correspondence or procedural issues cannot
be a ground to deny or defer the rightful dues of the landowner.
13.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case
there is no need to interfere with the order dated 07.03.2022
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1286 of 2018. The
petitioner/NHAI is directed to forthwith comply with the order
passed in writ petition in its letter and spirit and ensure payment
of the entire compensation amount to the writ petitioner
(respondent No.1 herein) as determined in the award dated
21.12.2017 and as directed by this Court in the order dated
7.3.2022 passed in WPC No.1286 of 2018.
14.With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant
review petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Jyoti
