Facts: The petitioners owned non-agricultural commercial plots in village Kedgaon, adjacent to a road being widened into a four-lane National Highway (NH 222). They alleged that the authorities initially excluded their lands from acquisition notifications but later altered the alignment due to political pressure, acquiring only portions of their plots. The petitioners contended that this partial acquisition rendered the remaining land unusable and commercially non-viable due to highway construction guidelines and the presence of a flyover. They further argued that the authorities wrongly treated their land as agricultural despite its commercial status since 1983, and failed to properly decide their representations for full acquisition or compensation for severance.
Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), seeking a declaration that the highway construction was illegal and a direction to the authorities to follow the procedure under Section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Issue: Whether the petitioners can challenge the acquisition on grounds not pleaded in the petition, and whether they are entitled to compensation for 'severance' or 'injurious affection' without providing objective evidence of damage to the remaining land.
Holding: No. The Court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue their representations before the competent authority.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the case argued was fundamentally different from the case pleaded; while the petition challenged the legality of the construction, the oral arguments focused on partial acquisition and severance. Under settled law, a writ court cannot grant relief on grounds not founded in pleadings. Furthermore, the Court held that compensation for 'severance' or 'injurious affection' under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is not automatic. A claimant must produce objective material—such as valuation reports, maps, or technical data—to demonstrate a diminution in value or utility of the remaining land. The petitioners failed to provide such material despite being granted time. However, as representations were pending, the Court directed the authorities to decide them on merits within eight weeks.