MP High Court: Unused Land Acquired For Highways Cannot Be Reclaimed by Owners

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has dismissed a writ petition seeking the return of land that was acquired for the construction of a National Highway, reiterating that once land stands vested in the Union of India after acquisition and payment of compensation, there is no statutory mechanism to direct its return, even if a portion remains unutilised.

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh passed the order on August 19, 2026, while hearing a petition filed by Kaushalya Devi, who contended that while part of her land in Khasra No. 633/1 in village Kemar was indeed used for building the highway, 0.043 hectares had been left unused after construction was completed. She sought a direction to the concerned authorities to hand back this unutilised strip of land to her.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mahendra Singh Lodhi pressed the plea that the surplus land, having served no purpose in the project, ought to be restored to its original owner.

Opposing the plea, Government Advocate Anubhav Jain, representing the State, submitted that the issue stood settled by two earlier decisions of learned Single Judges of the same High Court, in Dayanand vs. Union of India, order dated August 16, 2016, and Dadhiram Jatav vs. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India and others, order dated August 22, 2022. Both rulings had held that once land is acquired and compensation duly paid to the person from whom it was taken, the land vests permanently in the Union of India, and there being no legal provision for its return, courts cannot direct otherwise.

Advocate Mohan Sausarkar, appearing for respondent No. 4 NHAI, sought to persuade the Bench otherwise, relying on a Division Bench ruling in Pradeep Pandey and others vs. The Collector Sagar, District Sagar and others, dated January 9, 2024, where the Bench had examined Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, along with the Supreme Court's ruling in Project Director, National Highways vs. M. Hakeem, and had declined to grant relief.

The Bench, however, was not persuaded that this precedent applied to the facts at hand. It observed that the Pradeep Pandey ruling concerned land acquired under the 2013 Act, and not under the National Highways Act, noting that "the judgment is not in regard to National Highway Authority," but "in regard to land acquisition under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013." It therefore held that the decision was "not application to the facts and circumstances of the present case."

Turning instead to the Single Judge rulings cited by the State, the Bench found that both Dayanand and Dadhiram Jatav dealt squarely with land acquired under the National Highways Act, and were "identical on the aspects of land acquired under the National Highways Act" to the present matter. It noted that in Dadhiram Jatav, the Single Judge had examined Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, and had also taken note of the Supreme Court's judgment in Leelawanti and others vs. State of Haryana and others, before holding that the Union of India could not be directed to return land acquired for a highway project, since the National Highways Act contained no provision permitting such return.

Finding no material placed before it to contradict this settled position, the Bench held that "the ratio of law laid down in Dadhiram Jatav shall follow the course in the present case," and dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Kaushalya Devi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: August 19, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh