-
by sayum
22 December 2025 10:01 AM
“Right to Easement Once Established Survives Compensation Enhancement—Doctrine of Merger Does Not Extinguish Statutory Entitlements,” In a significant ruling on July 8, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, exercising civil revisional jurisdiction in CR No. 2891 and CR No. 2896 of 2025, dismissed the petitions filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenging the execution of compensation orders in a land acquisition matter. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, upholding the Executing Court’s orders, affirmed that landowners are entitled to the enhanced compensation, including statutory easement benefits under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956, based on an original unchallenged award passed by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA).
The Court held that “the doctrine of merger cannot be used to defeat the original award when the enhancement was limited to quantum of compensation and statutory additions” and ruled that easement rights, once awarded and unchallenged, need not be redetermined when the compensation amount is subsequently enhanced.
The case arose from land acquired by the NHAI for NH-15 in village Verka, Punjab, through notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. The CALA-cum-SDM, Amritsar, issued an award on May 31, 2010, granting compensation at ₹8,926 per square yard and a 10% additional amount as easement compensation under Section 3G(2). This award was accepted and partially paid by NHAI.
Dissatisfied with the compensation amount, the landowners filed a petition under Section 3G(5) for enhancement, which was dismissed. Their objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, also failed. Ultimately, in FAO No. 8090 of 2014, the High Court on May 19, 2016, enhanced compensation to ₹30,000 per square yard with statutory benefits. This was later revised on review to ₹26,000 per square yard via judgment dated December 20, 2017. NHAI’s SLP was dismissed, giving finality to the judicial determination.
In the execution proceedings, NHAI objected to paying revised easement compensation, contending that the easement amount was never expressly reaffirmed by the High Court or Supreme Court and was not payable to landowners under Section 3G(2). The Executing Court rejected these objections, holding that CALA's original award of easement compensation had never been challenged by NHAI and, therefore, remained binding.
The core legal question before the Court was whether landowners are entitled to enhanced easement compensation under Section 3G(2) after the compensation amount was revised by the High Court, despite the absence of a fresh judicial direction on that point.
NHAI argued that Section 3G(2) provides easement compensation only for tenants or licensees whose user rights are affected—not for owners. It claimed that the High Court’s judgment enhancing compensation made no reference to easement, and hence, such benefits could not be executed. NHAI also invoked the doctrine of merger, asserting that the original CALA award was extinguished by the High Court’s subsequent order.
The High Court rejected these arguments emphatically. It held: “Undisputedly, the respondents/land owners have been awarded easement amount under Section 3G(2)... which stands executed as well. The same has been accepted by the petitioner/NHAI. There is no challenge to it to date. Therefore, the land owners’ entitlement to enhanced easement amount based upon the enhanced compensation... cannot be questioned.”
Justice Dahiya cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tarsem Singh v. Union of India, which declared that statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, apply even to acquisitions under the NH Act and held:
“Statutory benefits accrue by operation of law and need not be separately adjudicated.”
The Court further invoked the principle from J. Kodanda Rami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, clarifying that once an award is accepted and not appealed by the losing party, its terms—however erroneous—cannot be challenged in execution:
“Even if the award was erroneous, it was required to be challenged by the NHAI. As it has not been done... the award has attained finality.”
Justice Dahiya observed that Section 3G(2) explicitly allows easement compensation to owners where easement rights are affected, provided that entitlement is proved. In this case, entitlement was already established through the 2010 CALA award and payment made by NHAI without protest:
“The right need not be re-established post final adjudication... With the passing of the final order dated 20.12.2017, the CALA award stands modified only as to the quantum of land compensation; the easement grant remains intact.”
The Court found NHAI’s reliance on doctrine of merger misconceived, ruling:
“The award not under challenge cannot merge with the final order. Instead, the CALA award stands modified in terms of the compensation enhancement, which needs to be executed accordingly.”
Thus, the High Court held that easement compensation under Section 3G(2), once awarded and unchallenged, survives enhancement in compensation and forms part of the amount payable in execution.
Dismissing both petitions filed by the NHAI, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Executing Court to proceed expeditiously with the execution of the award, holding that the landowners are entitled to the balance of compensation including revised easement amount.
This judgment decisively settles that easement compensation under Section 3G(2) is not limited to tenants or licensees and once granted to landowners and accepted without challenge, it becomes part of the enforceable claim—especially when the base compensation itself is enhanced by judicial orders. The ruling strengthens the finality of unchallenged administrative awards and emphasizes the non-revisitable character of accepted compensation components unless appealed in proper time.
Date of Decision: 08 July 2025
