Shri Satish N v. National Highways Authority of India

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025WP/11688/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 | WP No. 11688 of 2025 (LA-RES), High Court of Karnataka, Justice K.S. Hemalekha, decided 24.11.2025. Keywords: recovery notice; excess compensation; Section 3G National Highways Act 1956; Competent Authority functus officio; no power of review after award; NH-150A Challakere-Hiriyur widening project; Survey No.433; Survey No.58/2; developed industrial lands; arbitration under Section 3G(5); SLAO NHAI; Kalabharati Advertising (2010) 9 SCC 437; Patel Narshi Thakershi (1971) 3 SCC 844; Naresh Kumar (2019) 9 SCC 416; ILR 2011 KAR 3580; writ petition allowed; recovery notices quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned recovery notices dated 14.02.2024 issued by the SLAO are quashed, and all consequential recovery proceedings initiated or pursued pursuant thereto also stand quashed. ¶120

Shri Satish N Vs National Highways Authority of India — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned recovery notices dated 14.02.2024 issued by the SLAO are quashed, and all consequential recovery proceedings initiated or pursued pursuant thereto also stand quashed.

¶120

Issue for consideration

Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), the Competent Authority under Section 3G sub-clause (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, has any jurisdiction to issue a recovery notice alleging excess payment of compensation after the award has been passed, and whether the authority becomes functus officio upon passing the award, thereby lacking power to review, revise or correct the compensation in any manner.

¶32

Court's answer

The Competent Authority under the NH Act has no power of review, revision, modification, clarification or correction of an award; the attempt by the respondent-SLAO to recover alleged excess payment is an ex facie void action, being an exercise of review without statutory sanction.

¶113

Ratio / Principle

The point framed is answered accordingly: the impugned recovery notices are without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of Section 3G of the NH Act.

¶117

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging recovery notices dated 14.02.2024 (No. SO/SLAO/NHAI/HYR/RH-150A/2024-25/209) issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Competent Authority under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, demanding Rs.12,19,24,242 from petitioner No.1 as alleged excess compensation for lands in Survey Nos.433 and 58/2 acquired for the NH-150A (Challakere-Hiriyur) widening project. Held: once the award is passed under Section 3G(1), the competent authority becomes functus officio; absent express statutory provision, it has no power of review, revision, modification, clarification or correction of the award, and any attempt to revisit it is a nullity being without jurisdiction. Following Kalabharati Advertising, Patel Chunibhai, Harbhajan Singh, Patel Narshi Thakershi, Naresh Kumar, Indrakala Agrawal, Bhupendrasingh and NHAI v. Assistant Commissioner (Kolar), the Court held the recovery notices without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of Section 3G, quashed them along with all consequential recovery proceedings.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.11688 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI SATISH .N AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGARAJ, SATISH NILAYA, GANDHINAGARA, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577522 9845383489 [email protected]

¶11

SMT. K.V. SHASHIKALA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE K. NAGARAJ, SATISH NILAYA, GANDHINAGARA, CHALLAKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577522. 6364244903.

¶12

Digitally signed by 6364244903. MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI CHANDAN GOWDA PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

&PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA KARNATAKA REGION, REGIONAL OFFICE, SY NO.13, BENGALURU-TUMKUR ROAD, NH-4, MS RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, NEAR NAGASADNRA METRO STATION, BENGALURU-560073.

¶16

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NEAR JMIT, NH 48 (KM 201) CHITRADURGA-577502.

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, HIRIYUR-BELLARY ROAD, SHRI ANJENAYA TEMPLE, VEDAVATHI NAGAR, HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577598.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ONAKE OBAVVA CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶23

&RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER (STYLED AS RECOVERY NOTICE) BEARING NO. SO/SLAO/NHAI/HYR/RH-150A/2024-25/209 DATED 14.02.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO PAY RS.12,19,24,242 WHICH IS ALLEGED TO BE EXCESS COMPENSATION PAID TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT LANDS, ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-A FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE GROUNDS AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The question that falls for consideration before this Court is 8 whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), who is the Competent Authority under Section 3G sub-clause (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (8NH Act9 for short), has any jurisdiction to issue a 8recovery notice9 alleging excess payment of compensation after the award has been passed, and whether the authority becomes functus officio upon passing the award, thereby lacking the power to review, revise or correct the compensation in any manner.9

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and perused the material on record.

¶34

The petitioners have called in question the

¶35

recovery notices issued by respondent No.3-SLAO, wherein the SLAO has alleged that the compensation was wrongly computed by treating the lands as developed lands and has

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

demanded `12.19 crores back from each of the petitioners within seven days, treating it as 8excess compensation9.

¶40

Brief facts:

¶41

The petitioners claim as owners of industrially converted lands in Survey No.433 and Survey No.58/2, purchased under the registered sale deeds dated 06.07.2011. These lands were acquired for NH-150A (Challakere-Hiriyur) widening project through notification dated 24.04.2020 under Section 3A of NH Act and notification dated 08.09.2020 under Section 3D of NH Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation of 2.69 crores for Survey No.433 and 10.22 crores for Survey No.58/2, treating them as developed industrial lands. The petitioners filed arbitration petition under Section 3G sub-clause (5) seeking enhancement.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that once an award is passed under Section 3G (1) of the NH Act, the SLAO becomes functus officio, and only the arbitrator

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

under Section 3G (5) can modify the quantum and thus, the recovery notices amount to a review of the SLAO9s own award. Learned counsel submits that the impugned recovery notices are in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to issuance of the recovery notices. The audit report relied upon by the SLAO does not even refer to Survey No.433 or Survey No.58/2.

¶46

Learned counsel relies upon the following

¶47

decisions:

¶48

i. Bhupendrasingh Vs. Competent Authority and others¹ (Bhupendrasingh)

¶49

ii. Indrakala Agrawal and others Vs. State of

¶50

Madhya Pradesh and others² (Indrakala Agrawal) 3 High Court of Madhya Pradesh

¶51

iii. Shreekishan and another Vs. State of

¶52

Madhya Pradesh and others³ (Shreekishan) - High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

¶53

1 2019 SCC Online Bom 6092

¶54

2 W.P. No.8178/2020 D.D. 23.04.2021

¶55

3 W.P. No.21556/2021 D.D. 06.12.2021

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

iv. National Highway Authority of India Vs.

¶59

Rajbir and others⁴ (Rajbir) ,

¶60

To submit that the competent authority had no statutory power to review, modify or correct an award, not even for clerical or arithmetic mistakes, and that any such attempt is void.

¶61

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NHAI, submits that the lands were not developed, the award was mistakenly computed using 8developed lands9 rates, and that the petitioners were paid excess. Learned counsel relies upon the audit report, wherein it is observed that the lands are not developed in accordance with the conversion conditions and must be valued as dry / undeveloped lands. She submits that the issuance of recovery notice is justified in view of the indemnity bonds executed by the khatedar and relies upon

¶62

National Highways Authority of India Vs. P. Nagaraju

¶63

4 SLP (C) No.18889-18948/2022 D.D. 11.02.2022

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

@ Cheluvaiah and another⁵ (P. Nagaraju) to argue that neither landowners nor the exchequer would suffer from incorrect compensation.

¶67

The legal position regarding the power of review is well settled. To obviate any debate, the Apex Court, in the case of Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others⁶ (Kalabharati Advertising) , has held that unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication confers such power, no judicial or quasi-judicial authority can entertain a review and held at paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 as under:

¶68

<12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh.)

¶69

5 (2022) SCC Online SC 864

¶70

6 (2010) 9 SCC 437

¶71

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records and Settlement and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction.=

¶75

The Apex Court in the case of Patel Chunibhai Dajibha etc., Vs. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and another⁷ (Patel Chunibhai), Harbhajan Singh Vs. Karam Singh and others⁸ (Harbhajan Singh) as well as in Patel Narshi Thakershi and others Vs. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji⁹ (Patel Narshi Thakershi) , held that the power to review is not an inherent power, and review is a

¶76

7 AIR 1965 SC 1457

¶77

8 AIR 1966 SC 641

¶78

9 (1971) 3 SCC 844

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

creation of statute, in the absence of a statutory provision enabling review, any attempt to revisit or modify an earlier order is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. Applying this principle to acquisition matters, the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar and others Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi)¹⁰ (Naresh Kumar) has held at paragraph Nos.13 and 14 as under:

¶82

<13. It is settled law that the power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the statute concerned, such power of review cannot be exercised by the authority concerned. This Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, has held as under: (SCC pp. 445-46, paras 12-14)

¶83

<& 12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without

¶84

10 (2019) 9 SCC 416

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh.)

¶89

13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records & Settlement and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction.

¶90

14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.=

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

14. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the award dated 1-10-2003 could not have been reviewed by the Collector, and thus we allow these appeals and quash the order dated 4-7-2004 passed by the Collector in Review Award No.16/03-04 as well as the order dated 4-3-2010 passed by the Delhi High Court in Naresh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi). The appellants shall thus be entitled to the compensation as awarded in terms of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 1-10-2003, and the supplementary award dated 27-10-2004. No orders as to costs.=

¶95

The Apex Court observed that even where the statute confers powers analogous to that of a Civil Court, the absence of an express review clause completely bars any consideration of an award.

¶96

The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Indrakala Agrawal , after considering the judgments of the various High Courts and the Mumbai High Court decision in Bhupendrasingh , has categorically held that the Competent Authority under the NH Act cannot travel beyond Section 3G to review, revise, clarify, modify or

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

correct an award. The Court summarized that the NH Act contains no provisions akin to Section 152 of the CPC or Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (8Land Acquisition Act9 for short) and therefore, no clerical or arithmetical factual or legal correction is permissible once the award is passed.

¶101

The Division Bench of the Mumbai High Court, in Bhupendrasingh, by considering the provisions of Sections 3A to 3G of NH Act has observed at paragraph No.15 as under:

¶102

<15. For determining the question in hand, it will have to be considered whether the Competent Authority under the provisions of the NH Act, 1956 has the power of review or a power of correction of the award. A faint argument was advanced that considering the provisions of Section 3-I of the NH Act, 1956 the Competent Authority, being conferred with the powers to summon witnesses, etc., which were in fact available to a 8Court9 and, thus, the status of the Competent Authority would be that of a 8Court9 or equivalent thereto.=

¶103

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

The Division Bench of this Court in National Highway Authority of India Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Competent Authority, Kolar and another¹¹ (National Highway Authority of India) has reiterated that the Competent Authority becomes functus officio , the moment the award under Section 3G (1) is signed and any subsequent modification is only without jurisdiction and held at paragraph No.13 as under:

¶106

<13. The question is whether respondent No.1 has any such power under the provisions of the Act to pass such a second award. The answer has to be an emphatic no. There is no provision in the Act clothing respondent No. 1 to pass a second award. Once an award is passed determining the compensation by the competent authority, then as per the provisions contained under sub-Section (5) of Section 3G of the Act, the aggrieved party who does not accept the amount has to make an application to the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government who will determine the correct amount payable. As per sub-Section (6) of Section 3G of the Act, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, are made applicable to every

¶107

11 ILR 2011 KAR 3580

¶108

14 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

Arbitration that takes place under the National Highways Act, 1956. As per sub-Section (7) of Section 3G of the Act, certain factors are enumerated which are required to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation by the competent authority and also by the arbitrator. It is thus clear that if it is the case of the claimants-land owners that proper market value to the acquired lands payable as on the date of preliminary Notification published under Section 3A of the Act was not determined and awarded by the competent authority, the only course open for them is to move the arbitrator whereupon the arbitrator is enjoined with a duty to determine the same by following the provisions contained under sub-Section (7) of Section 3G of the Act. The aggrieved party will be further entitled to avail the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.=

¶112

Thus, in view of the consistent line of authorities,

¶113

the Competent Authority under the NH Act has no power of review, revision, modification, clarification, or correction of an award. The attempt made by the respondent3SLAO alleging excess payment is an ex facie void action, being an exercise of review without statutory sanction.

¶114

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:48715 WP No. 11688 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

For the aforesaid reasons, the point framed is

¶117

answered accordingly, holding that the impugned recovery notices are without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of Section 3G of the NH Act. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶120

ii. The impugned recovery notices dated 14.02.2024 issued by the SLAO are hereby quashed . All consequential recovery proceedings initiated or pursued pursuant thereto shall also stand quashed .

¶121

Sd/-

¶122

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶123

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

¶124

MBM

Shri Satish N v. National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Satish N v. National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Puttathayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shree Vijayalkshmi Residential Welfare and Development Society (R) Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Asgar Alikhan @ Lalkhan Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

P Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka

B Lokanandha Naidu Vs the State of Karnataka