Gujarat High Court
Hansaben Prafulbhai Desai vs Union Of India & 2....Opponent(S) on 24 March, 2017
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, A.Y. Kogje
C/MCA/3565/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CLARIFICATION) NO. 3565 of 2016
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13389 of 2013
==========================================================
HANSABEN PRAFULBHAI DESAI....Applicant(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 2....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAURABH G AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Opponent(s) No. 2
MS ARCHANA U AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 , 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 24/03/2017
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Special Civil Application No. 13389 of 2013 was disposed of by a judgement dated 07.04.2016 with following directions:
"29. In facts of the present case, therefore, instead of directing the Railway authorities to undertake the entire gamut of acquiring petitioner's interest in the land starting from declaration of intention in terms of subsection (1) of section 20A of the Act, we direct the authorities as under :
1) Deposit entire amount of Rs.9,38,640/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:18:42 IST 2017 C/MCA/3565/2016 ORDER before the competent authority latest by 31.5.2016.
2) The authorities shall recalculate the compensation payable to the petitioner as on today for the loss of superstructure and loss of user of land, if any, along with statutory benefits, in terms of Chapter-IV-A of the Railways Act, 1989 which shall be done latest by 30.6.2016. Upon such revised computation, which will be communicated to the petitioner, the difference between the sum of Rs.9,38,640/-
minus interest and what may be recomputed as per this direction, not later than 30 days from the date of such re- computation, shall be deposited before the competent authority. If so done, the same shall not carry interest, failing which, it will incur, upon completion of such period, simple interest at the rate of 9% till deposit.
4) It will be open for the petitioner to withdraw such sums from the competent authority subject to her right to seek enhancement as per law.
5) Upon completion of such exercise, it will be open for the Railway authorities to take possession of the property in question.
30. We notice and clarify that it is only the petitioner who has come before us challenging the very basis of acquisition. Other occupants have accepted the legality of the acquisition and in fact, sought higher compensation through arbitral proceedings. Nothing stated in this order therefore would reopen the question qua these persons who in any case have not felt aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings per se.
2. Pursuant to such directions, it appears that the competent authority has calculated the compensation payable to the petitioner at Rs. 11,63,811/- against which, the amount of Rs. 9,39,640/- deposited before the Court and ordered to be paid by the Court under the said judgement, has been adjusted.
Page 2 of 3HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:18:42 IST 2017 C/MCA/3565/2016 ORDER
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present proceeding is that no basis for arriving at such calculation has been provided. We agree with the suggestion of counsel for the petitioner. Firstly in sub para (2) of para 29 of the judgement we had directed the competent authority to undertake/revise the computation of compensation and communicate the same to the petitioner. The word 'computation' would not mean mere calculation and would take within its fold the entire basis for arriving at the final figure. This can be gathered from para 30 of the judgement in which, we had left the option to the petitioner open to dispute said compensation paid. Without providing any basis, it would not be even possible for the petitioner to decide whether the working out of the compensation is proper or not.
4. Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit along with which certain documents have produced. However, none of these documents provide the computation of compensation, as discussed above. Under the circumstances, the competent authority is directed to produce before the Court, the basis adopted for calculating the compensation and other materials which has gone into the final computation along with an affidavit.
S.O. to 21.04.2017.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) Jyoti Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Sun Aug 13 17:18:42 IST 2017