Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Seeta Devi vs Union Of India on 21 February, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 17) [CW-3644/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3644/2019
Chandra Devi W/o Shri Dilip Kumar Sindhi, Aged About 40 Years,
273, Sector-7, Malveeya Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector-III, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13468/2017
Udit A. Mehta S/o Shri Akshay J. Mehta, R/o House No. 93,
Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur Through Will Of Late Shri J.s. Mehta, R/
o House No. 93, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd.
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Boranara, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer - Sdo, Luni, Tehsil And
District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13482/2017
Udit A. Mehta S/o Shri Akshay J. Mehta, R/o House No. 93,
Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur Through Will Of Late Shri J.s. Mehta, R/
o House No. 93, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Industries Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM)
(2 of 17) [CW-3644/2019]
Investment Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur Through Its Managing Director, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd.
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, Riico Ltd., Boranara, Jodhpur.
4. The Land Acquisition Officer - Sdo, Luni Tehsl And District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 70/2019
Pappu Ram S/o Shri Lal Ji Prajapat, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Guda Road, Jhalamand Choraha, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector- Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2795/2019
Jaideep Kumbhat S/o Shri Dashrathmal, Aged About 48 Years,
By Caste Oswal, 6 Roop Rajat, Sarovar Amritnagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road
Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3135/2019
Rekha Devi W/o Shri Kamal Kishor, Aged About 38 Years, By
Caste Sindhi R/o House Ni. 9, Sindhi Colony, Near Jaljog Choraha
Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM)
(3 of 17) [CW-3644/2019]
Transport Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4211/2019
Kavita Devi W/o Shri Govind Ram Sindhi, Aged About 49 Years,
By Caste Sindhi, R/o House No. 1, Gali No. 9, Paota C Road,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4252/2019
Kavita Devi W/o Shri Govind Ram Sindhi, Aged About 49 Years,
By Caste Sindhi, R/o House No. 1, Gali No. 9, Paota C Road,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Road, Transport And
Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4253/2019
Pankaj Gupta S/o Shri Bal Kishandas Gupta, Aged About 44
Years, Rooprajat Sarowar, Amrit Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM)
(4 of 17) [CW-3644/2019]
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Road, Transport And
Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), Additional
District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, National
Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4256/2019
Sunita Janwani D/o Shri Govind Ram Sindhi, Aged About 25
Years, By Caste Sindhi, R/o House No. 1 Gali No. 9, Paota C
Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4260/2019
Seeta Devi W/o Bhanwar Lal Choudhary, Aged About 62 Years,
By Caste Jat, R/o Saraswati Nagar, Basni First Phase, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4566/2019
1. Seeta Devi W/o Bhanwar Lal Choudhary, Aged About 62
Years, B/c Jat, Saraswati Nagar, Basni First Phase,
Jodhpur.
2. Jadaw Devi W/o Mohan Lal,, Aged About 78 Years, By
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM)
(5 of 17) [CW-3644/2019]
Caste Jat, R/o Village Chandawal, Tehsil Sojat City,
District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And
Additional District Collector-Iii, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Swami
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia,
Mr. R.D. Bhadu,
Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal.
Mr. Deepak Vyas for
Mr. Lalit Vyas
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 21/02/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. For the purpose of brevity in the present adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from CWP No.3644/2019 & 13468/2017.
3. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM)
(6 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] CWP No.3644/2019:
"A. The comprehensive guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 28.12.2017 must be quashed and set aside as far as they violates section 106 of the act of 2013, which discriminate the petitioner by not applying the date of determination for market value of the land of the petitioner as on 1.1.2015; B. This guidelines must be quashed in as far as they states that Section 24 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is not applicable to the acquisition under the NHAI Act, 1956. C. The Guidelines must be quashed in as far as they say that for proceedings which were pending on the date of commencement of the Act of 2013, the reference date must be the date of issuance of Section 3A notification of the NHAI Act, 1956 and not the date of commencement of the Act of 2015 on the acquisitions under NHAI Act, 1956 i.e. 1.1.2015;
D. The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the circular of Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development's dated 26.10.2015 and redetermine the award of the petitioner while taking into consideration the reference date for calculation of market value as per the above circular and may re-determine the award of the petitioner while considering DLC rate prevalent on 1.1.2015;
E. The respondents may be directed to comply with the guidelines given by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders and as per the clarifications given by this circular;
F. The respondents may be directed to pay the amount of interest @ 15% from the date of taking possession till to the date of making additional amount of compensation." CWP No.13468/2017
"A. The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the circular of Department of Land Resources, Ministry of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) (7 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] Rural Development's dated 26.10.2015 (Annex.5) and redetermine the award of the petitioner while taking into consideration the reference date for calculation of market value as per the above circular and may re-determine the award of the petitioner while considering DLC rate prevalent on 1.1.2014;
B. The respondents may be directed to comply with the guidelines given by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders and as per the clarifications given by this circular."
4. As the pleaded facts of CWP No.3644/2019 would reveal, the petitioner was having possession and ownership of residential land in khasra No.203/17, Village Bhakrasani, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur situated at National Highway No.65 on main road Jodhpur Pali Road.
5. On 12.07.2013, under Section 3A of the National Highway Authority Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956'), a notification was issued by the Road Transport and Highway, Government of India, New Delhi, for the purpose of re- constructing the existing National Highway No.65, Jodhpur-Pali Division as four land highway. Subsequently, a notification under Section 3-D(1) of the Act of 1956 was issued by the competent authority on 10.10.2014, showing the details of land of the petitioner.
6. Thereafter, in pursuance of the aforementioned notifications, an award dated 16.01.2015 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer - Addl. District Collector-III, Jodhpur, and the petitioner received the award amount and accordingly, possession of the land was taken by the respondents. Such acquisition was made under the Act of 1956.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM)
(8 of 17) [CW-3644/2019]
7. However, it is averred in the writ petition that since the award was passed after 01.01.2015, such award was supposed to be made in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013'), therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8365/2016 before this Hon'ble Court challenging the aforementioned award. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court with a direction to the respondents to re- determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in lieu of the acquisition, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.
8. In pursuance of the aforementioned order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the respondent No.3 re-determined the compensation, vide its award dated 23.06.2017, at Annexure -1. The compensation was awarded while taking the DLC rate prevalent on the date of preliminary notification, dated 12.07.2013, i.e. notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956; whereas as per the petitioner, such compensation ought to have been determined, while complying with the circular, dated 26.10.2015, at Annexure-2, issued by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development and the stipulations made therein.
9. As the pleaded facts of CWP No.13468/2017 would reveal, the petitioner was having possession and ownership of an agricultural land in khasra No.932, Village Kankani, District Jodhpur.
10. On 19.06.2012, a notification was issued by the competent authority under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) (9 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] acquisition of the land in question for industrial development in the concerned area; in the said notification, the details of the petitioner's land were also mentioned.
10.1 Subsequently, another notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued showing the details of the petitioner's land.
11. Pursuant to the aforementioned notifications, an award dated 28.07.2015 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer, Luni, District Jodhpur.
12. Thereafter, a notice under Section 12 sub-section (2) of the Act of 1894 was issued on 04.08.2015, showing the details of the land acquisition and the compensation amount in lieu thereof.
13. The aforementioned award was passed while taking the DLC rate prevalent on the date of the aforementioned notification i.e. 19.06.2012, whereas the DLC rate prevalent as on 01.01.2014 ought to have been taken into account while determining the compensation in lieu of the acquisition. Further, averment has been made in the writ petition that the circular dated 26.10.2015 issued by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development and the stipulations made therein, ought to have been complied with, while making such determination.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the award, dated 16.01.2015, was passed by the competent authority, acting in accordance of the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. C.W.P. No. 836/2016, determined the amount payable to the petitioners while taking the DLC rate prevalent on the date of the preliminary notification, dated 12.07.2013, issued under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 but since the award had been made after the commencement of the Act of 2013, the competent authority ought to have taken the reference date for the calculation of (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) (10 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] market value under Section 24 sub-section (1) (A) of the Act of 2013, as 01.01.2014 as the same was clarified by the Depatment of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development vide circular 26.10.2015.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that under the Act of 1956; the notification under Section 3 (A) was issued on 17.07.2013, the Section 3 (D) notification was issued on 05.05.2015 but the award under Section 3 (G) of the Act of 1956 had been made on 16.01.2015, i.e. after the commencement of the Act of 2013 i.e. 01.01.2015.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the DLC rate prevalent on the 12.07.2013, on the date of the notification issued under Section 3(A) of the Act of 1956 was Rs. 870/- per sq. ft. whereas the DLC rate as prevalent on 01.01.2015 was Rs. 1100/- per sq. ft. And that, the error on the part of the competent authority has caused financial loss and hardship to the petitioners.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that from 01.01.2015, for land acquisitions under the Acts mentioned in the Fourth Schedule, the compensation is to be determined as per the Act of 2013.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the comprehensive guidelines issued, on 28.12.2017, by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways are in violation of the circular, dated 26.10.2015, issued by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development and drastically reduces the compensation for the petitioners.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the Act of 2013 has been uniformly applied to all the acquisitions, (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) (11 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] the position under the Act of 1956 has to be governed by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, through its circular issued on 26.10.2015.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforementioned guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, is violative of Section 106 sub-section (1) of the Act of 2013, which clearly stipulates that compensation may not be reduced.
Section 106 of the Act of 2013 reads as follows:-
"106. Power to amend Schedule. -
(1) The Central Government may, by notification, amend or alter any of the Schedules to this Act, without in any way reducing the compensation or diluting the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement"
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the date of award in all the connected writ petitions is 23.06.2017, i.e. all the awards have been passed after the date 01.01.2015.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, with regard to the second batch of writ petitions, the issue remains the same as the first batch of connected writ petitions, except that the acquisitions were made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the notification to that effect was issued under Section 4 of the said Act and the award therein was passed under Section 11 of the said Act. And that, in both the connected writ petitions, the Section 4 notifications were issued on 19.06.2012 by the competent authority, and the awards therein were made on 28.07.2015, i.e. after 01.01.2014, the date on which the Act of 2013 came into force. And that, the compensation so given to the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) (12 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] petitioners, through the said awards, was calculated at Rs. 2,50,470/- per bigha, as was the DLC rate prevalent on 19.06.2012 where as the DLC rate should have been calculated as prevalent on 01.01.2014, at Rs. 31,15,600/- per bigha. 22.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners also drew this Court's attention to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Aligarh Development Authority Vs. Megh Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 2016 wherein the Hon'ble Court directed the concerned Land Acquisition Officer to redetermine the compensation from the date 01.01.2014, i.e. after the Act of 2013 came into force as is clearly provided under the statute itself, and as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Court in other precedents as well.
23. Learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the direction as issued by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. C.W.P. No. 8365/2016 was fully complied with by the concerned State authorities and that the amount was rightly determined and computed keeping in mind the DLC rate prevalent on the date of notification, in consonance with the provision of law laid down under the concerned Sections of the Act of 2013 and Act of 1894 respectively.
24. Learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the State authorities have only acted in light of the comprehensive guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, issued on 28.12.2017, at Annexure-4, whereby under Point 4.5 (ii) it has been categorically stated that Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is not applicable to the acquisitions under the Act of 1956. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM)
(13 of 17) [CW-3644/2019]
25. Learned counsel for the State respondents, with regard to the second batch of writ petitions, makes the following submissions, that that the petitioner did not avail the available alternate remedy, under the Act of 1894 or Act of 2013, which is the filing of reference. And that, the claim of the petitioner with respect to the circular, issued on 26.10.2015, issued by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development is a mere legal opinion without any binding effect. And that, the award was passed after the commencement of the Act of 2013 and therefore all due considerations under law were made while passing the impugned award dated 28.07.2015.
26. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case, and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited at the bar.
27. This Court observes that, vide the circular issued on 26.10.2015, at Annexure - 2, the Government of India, through the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Land Resources unequivocally laid down, under Sr. No. 3, the following:
"The reference date for calculation of market value, under Section 24 (1) (a) should be 01.01.2014 (i.e. the commencement of RFCTLARR Act, 2013) as the section reads "in any ase of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. Under Section 26 reference date is date of preliminary notifications, but Section 24 is a special case of application of the Act in retrospective cases, and a later date of determination of market value (i.e. 01.01.2014) with a view to ensure that the land owners/farmers/affected families get enhanced compensation under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) (14 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] (as also recommended by the Standing Committee in its 31 st report)."
28. This Court further observes that the date of the award passed in the first bunch of connected writ petitions is 26.06.2017, i.e. after the date on which the Act of 2013 came into force and there the computation must be made in the terms, as laid down in the abovementioned circular.
29. This Court further observes that the National Highways Act of 1956 is placed at Item no. 7 in the Fourth Schedule of the Act of 2013. And the relevant Section of the Act of 2013, Section 105 reads as follows:
"105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications.-
(1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.
(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.
(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.
(4) ..."
29.1 This Court takes cognizance of the fact that on 31.12.2014, the Union Government through the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, published in The Gazette of India, an (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) (15 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] ordinance amending the Act of 2013, whereby Section 105 was amended and for sub-section (3), the following was substituted:
"The provisions of this Act relating to determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule with effect from 1st January, 2015."
29.2 This Court, therefore, observes that the Act of 1956 merges into the Act of 2013, and with respect to the bunch of connected writ petitions, the awards passed therein, by the competent authority, were passed on 23.06.2017, i.e. after the commencement of the Act of 2013, i.e. 01.01.2014, and after the aforementioned ordinance was promulgated, i.e. 31.12.2014, by the Union Government in exercise of its powers under Section 106 of the Act of 2013.
30. The contention of the State respondents that the aforementioned circular is merely a legal opinion and not binding upon them, is not accepted by this Court. In arriving at this conclusion, this Court derives strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur Vs. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries (2008) 13 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Constitution Bench held:
"7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) (16 of 17) [CW-3644/2019] clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law."
30.1 The judgment rendered in Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) clearly lays down that circulars issued by the State are without a doubt binding upon statutory authorities, and only circulars contrary to statutory provisions are non existent in law, if so found by a competent Court. However, such is not the case. The issue, with regard to the present petitions, is no longer res integra as the position has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court by the order, dated 12.02.2019, passed in Aligarh Development Authority (supra) wherein it held that the relevant date for the purposes of amount of compensation under the 2013 Act in all cases where the Award(s) were to be passed under the Act of 2013, the date for such consideration would uniformly be 01.01.2014. The Hon'ble Court further observed that the State itself had in some cases relied upon the Central Government's order therein, it directed the concerned Land Acquisition Officer to redetermine the compensation amount keeping in mind the relevant date as being 01.01.2014. 30.2 This Court, therefore, observes that the interpretation of the provision of the law laid in the Act of 2013 as made by the Union Government through the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, vide its circular dated 26.10.2015, is tandem to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court. (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM)
(17 of 17) [CW-3644/2019]
31. This Court, in light of the aforementioned observations:
31.1 The Writ Petitions Nos.3644/2019, 70/2019, 2795/2019, 3135/2019, 4211/2019, 4252/2019, 4253/2019, 4256/2019, 4260/2019, and 4566/2019 are partly allowed, with a direction to State Respondents, specifically the Land Acquisition Officer - Addl. District Collector -
III, Jodhpur to the comply with the aforementioned circular, dated 26.10.2015, issued by the Union Government through the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development and in accordance with the aforementioned order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
31.2 The Writ Petitions Nos.13468/2017 and 13482/2017 are allowed, with a direction to the State Respondents, specifically, the Land Acquisition officer, SDO, Luni, Tehsil and District Jodhpur to comply with the circular, dated 26.10.2015 of Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development's dated 26.10.2015 and redetermine the award of the petitioners while taking into consideration the reference date for calculation of market value as per the aforementioned circular, while considering the DLC rate as prevalent on 01.01.2014.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
55-66-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 10:12:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)