The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a fourth writ petition filed by a landowner seeking enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Vadodara–Mumbai Expressway project, holding that the petitioner had repeatedly approached the Court for the same relief while suppressing material facts and making misleading statements. The Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 and directed the Collector, Vadodara to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding an inter-departmental communication that appeared to have been relied upon by the petitioner.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray noted that the dispute related to compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed that although the land had been converted into non-agricultural land in 1970, the award dated 5 September 2017 wrongly treated it as agricultural land, resulting in lower compensation. He sought directions to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to deposit and release revised compensation along with statutory benefits, including solatium and interest.
Also Read ‘The Rule of Law Cannot Be Diminished Merely Because Power Is in Digital Form’: Justice Tejas Karia
The Court traced the petitioner’s litigation history, observing that this was the fourth petition arising out of the same cause of action. Earlier, the High Court had directed the authorities to decide the petitioner’s representation, after which contempt proceedings were closed upon compliance. A subsequent writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order rejecting the representation, while another petition challenging the compensation award was disposed of with liberty to invoke arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act for redetermination of compensation.
The Bench found that despite claiming in the present petition that an arbitration application had been filed in July 2023, the record showed that the application was actually received by the Collector only on 3 January 2024, indicating that the petitioner had furnished incorrect dates and misleading facts. The Court observed that the petitioner had failed to approach the Court with clean hands while seeking the same relief that was already pending before the statutory arbitrator.
During the hearing, NHAI referred to two inter-departmental communications placed on record by the petitioner. The High Court questioned how the petitioner had obtained these internal communications and expressed concern over a letter purportedly written by a Chitnis (ministerial officer) to the Collector and NHAI. The Bench observed that the letter either appeared to have been written at the petitioner’s instance or prepared by him to secure favourable orders from the Court. It therefore directed the Collector, Vadodara to conduct an inquiry into how and under what circumstances the communication came to be issued and to submit a report through the Registrar General of the High Court.
Holding that the petitioner was an unscrupulous litigant who had repeatedly approached the Court with ulterior motives and misleading pleadings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition with costs of ₹50,000, directing that the amount be deposited within three weeks, failing which it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
