In a landmark ruling that could benefit thousands of farmers and property owners across Maharashtra facing land grabs for national highways, the Bombay High Court has declared that the Central Government’s higher compensation multiplier must apply — not the State’s attempt to slash it. The court quashed state orders trying to limit payouts and ordered a fresh, fairer award within weeks.
This February 2, 2026 decision in Writ Petition No. 8122 of 2022 (Vikrant Happy Homes Private Limited & Others vs. Union of India & Others) sends a clear message: when it comes to national highways, the Centre calls the shots on fair compensation — and states can’t undercut it.
The Core Injustice: A Battle Over the “Multiplier” Factor
Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act), compensation for acquired rural land isn’t just the market value — it’s multiplied by a factor (between 1.00 and 2.00) to account for the loss and hardship.
- The Central Government (as the “appropriate Government” for Union purposes like national highways) notified on February 9, 2016 that the multiplier for rural areas would be 2.00 — effectively doubling the base market value before adding solatium (100% extra) and other benefits.
- But Maharashtra State Government issued:
- A notification on October 5, 2021,
- Government Resolutions (GRs) on October 6, 2021, and January 14, 2022, claiming the multiplier should be only 1.00 — even for national highway projects.
This meant landowners could lose out on roughly half the potential compensation for the same land.
The Case: Farmers’ Land for Surat-Nashik-Ahmednagar Greenfield Highway
The petitioners, owners of land in Gat Nos. 138 and 143 pt., Village Odha, Nashik district, saw their property targeted for the Surat-Nashik-Ahmednagar Greenfield Section of a national highway.
- On November 1, 2021, the Union of India (Ministry of Rural Development) issued the acquisition notification under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 — handled by NHAI (respondent No. 5).
- Landowners filed detailed objections on December 2, 2021, under Section 3-C, arguing the Central multiplier of 2.00 must apply.
- Hearings took place in January 2022, but the Competent Authority (Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, National Highways Project — respondent No. 4) rejected them and applied 1.00.
- An award was passed on January 13, 2023 (received by petitioners around October 2023), using the lower factor.
Frustrated, the landowners approached the Bombay High Court via this writ petition, challenging the state orders and the award.
Courtroom Clash: Centre vs. State Powers
Petitioners’ counsel argued:
- National highways fall exclusively under Entry 23, List I (Union List) of the Constitution — Central Government’s domain.
- Under Section 3(e)(v) of the 2013 Act, the “appropriate Government” for Union-purpose acquisitions (like NHAI projects) is the Central Government.
- Only the Centre could notify the multiplier under Section 30(2) read with the First Schedule — and it did so at 2.00 in 2016.
- State had no authority to override this for national highways.
State authorities (respondents 2–4) defended the 1.00 factor, claiming it applied to all highways and warning of doubled costs. They suggested landowners use the arbitration remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act.
NHAI supported the State.
Bombay High Court’s Verdict: A Clear Win for Fairness
Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat (judgment pronounced February 2, 2026, reserved on January 29, 2026) ruled decisively in favour of the petitioners.
Key holdings:
- Central Government has exclusive jurisdiction over national highways and the multiplier for such acquisitions.
- State’s 2021 notification and GRs are invalid (quashed) to the extent they apply to national highway projects — they overstepped into Central territory.
- The January 13, 2023 award is quashed for wrongly applying 1.00.
- Competent Authority must issue a fresh award within six weeks, using the 2.00 multiplier per the 2016 Central notification.
- Landowners retain the right to challenge the fresh award’s other aspects (quantum, valuation etc.) via arbitration under Section 3-G(5).
The court rejected the “cost will double” argument — compensation is NHAI’s (Central agency’s) responsibility, not the State’s to dilute.
What This Means for Landowners Facing Highway Acquisitions
This ruling could set a powerful precedent. Many national highway projects in Maharashtra (and potentially elsewhere) may have used the lower 1.00 factor wrongly. Affected owners now have strong grounds to seek higher compensation.
For the petitioners in this case, it means a shot at significantly better payout — and a reminder that constitutional divisions of power protect against unfair state overreach.
Rule made absolute — a victory for property rights in the face of infrastructure push.
