2026:HHC:21272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8314 of 2026 Decided on: 3rd June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ravi Shankar …..Petitioner Versus National Highway Authority of India and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Karan Sharma, learned counsel and Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. Short affidavit-cum-reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is taken on record. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 2026:HHC:21272 2. In nutshell, petitioner’s case is that his land though has been acquired by the respondent-National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and he has received compensation in lieu thereof, but since the land is not being utilized by the respondent-NHAI, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘Act of 2013’), the same is required to be returned to the petitioner. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was owner of land comprised in Khasra Nos.1049/1/2 and 1049/1/1/1 at Mauja Dhalli, Shimla. The aforesaid land parcels came under the acquisition process of the respondent-NHAI. Notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 was published in the official gazette on 07.03.2013 and 09.04.2014. In accordance with law, award No.22 dated 12.10.2015 and award No.22/G dated 19.06.2019, were passed for acquiring the aforesaid land parcels. Petitioner was awarded compensation qua the aforesaid acquired land. It appears that some litigation for enhancing the compensation awarded under the aforesaid award is yet pending adjudication. 3 2026:HHC:21272 Petitioner asserts that in the year 2020-21, respondents No.1 and 2 decided to divert from the original layout of four laning of National Highway No.22. In view of this decision, the afore-described land of the petitioner is not being utilized for construction of four laning of road, i.e. NH-22. In view of this factual assertion, learned counsel for the petitioner falls back upon Section 101 of the Act of 2013 and contends that in case the land acquired under this Act remains unutilized for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same is required to be returned either to the original owners/their legal heirs or to the land bank of the appropriate government by reversion in the manner as prescribed by the appropriate government. Section 101 reads as under:- “101. Return of unutilised land.- When any land acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case may be, or to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion in the manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government.” 4. Firstly, the land of the petitioner was acquired not under the Act of 2013, but under the provisions of National Highways Act. Further, Section 105(3) of the Act of 2013 provides that the Central Government shall, by 4 2026:HHC:21272 notification, within one year from the date of commencement of the Act, direct that any provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation & 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. Section 105 of the Act of 2013 is as follows:- “105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications.- 105. (1) Subject to sub-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 5 2026:HHC:21272 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.” National Highways Act, 1956 figures at Sr. No.7 of the List of Enactments falling under Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013. It was vide notification dated 28.08.2015 that the Central Government made the provisions of the Act of 2013 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, applicable to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. Relevant portion of the notification is as under:- “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 6 2026:HHC:21272 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.” Thus, Act of 2013 is applicable to land acquisition under the National Highways Act only in above situations. The remaining provisions of the Act of 2013 are not applicable to the acquisitions under the National Highways Act. In this regard, it would also be appropriate to refer to Mohar Singh Versus Union of India and others2. Portion relevant to the context is as under:- “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in view of aforesaid clarification issued by Government of India, National Highway Authority of India is under obligation to return his surplus land. However, having carefully perused aforesaid communication, this court finds merit in the submission of Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent National Highway Authority of India that vide aforesaid communication, Government of India, having taken note of the fact that there is no provision to return the land acquired under the Act, directed to return unused /surplus land to the State Government or administration of the Union Territory, for utilization of same for other purposes but definitely such land cannot be returned to the person, from whom same was acquired. 5. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this court peruse S.101 of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, ‘Act, 2013’), vehemently argued that the land, whenever remains unutilized for a period of 5 years, is required to be returned to its owner, but such plea of him is devoid of merit, because the very initial lines of aforesaid provision clearly talk about acquisition of land under the Act, 2013, whereas, admittedly in the case at hand, 2 CWP No.6568 of 2023, decided on 18.09.2023 7 2026:HHC:21272 acquisition of land was made under the National Highways Act, 1956, wherein there is no specific provision to return the unutilized/surplus land, which fact is otherwise evident from communication dated 9.12.2015 issued by Government of India, wherein it, while acknowledging factum with regard to land being surplus, decided to provide the same to State Government and the Union Territory, so that the same is used for other purposes, but definitely such land once acquired under the Act, cannot be returned to the land owner, who has otherwise received compensation qua the same. 7. Careful perusal of S.105(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, clearly provides that Central Government shall, by Notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any provisions of this Act relating to determination of compensation in accordance with First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in 2nd and 3rd Schedules, being beneficial to affected party, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications, that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provision of this Act, relating to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement as specified in the Notification, as the case may be. 8. 8. The Central Government vide Notification dated 28.8.2015, has provided as under: “2. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Resettlement and Rehabilitation) 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 case of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the said Act.” 9. In view of above, it is clear that the provisions of 2013 Act shall apply in land acquisition, in the afore situations only. Consequently in view of above, this court finds no merit in the present petition and same is dismissed.” 8 2026:HHC:21272 Mohar Singh Versus Union of India & Ors.3 preferred against the above decision was dismissed as under:- “This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgement dt. 18.09.2023 in CWP No. 6568 of 2023, rejecting the appellant’s plea for return of unutilized/surplus land, which had been acquired pursuant to the notification dt. 16.02.2015 issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956. 2. Learned Single Judge rejected the said plea by referring to notification dt. 28.08.2015, issued under Section 105(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by stating that Section 101 of the said Act has not been extended to the acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 and only certain provisions of 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement and provisions of infrastructure amenities, are extended in respect of acquisitions under National Highways Act, 1956 and other enactments specified in Fourth Schedule of the said Act. 3. Though, counsel for the appellant sought to contend that discrimination is being shown on the basis of the statute under which the acquisition has been made in regard to applying provisions to the 2013 Act and that such discrimination is impermissible in law. 4. We are unable to agree with the submission in view of the fact that it is for the Central Government under Section 105 of the 2013 Act to decide which provisions of the 2013 Act would be extended to acquisitions under other statutes, and unless all the provisions of 2013 Act are extended for acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, benefit of Section 101 of the Act cannot be claimed by the appellant.” 3 LPA No.224 of 2023, decided on 12.12.2023 9 2026:HHC:21272 5. In view of above, prayer for return of petitioner’s land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, by invoking Section 101 of the Act of 2013, cannot be allowed. Section 101 of the Act of 2013 is not applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956. The relief prayed for by the petitioner is not admissible to him. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 03, 2026 Judge Mukesh