Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 September, 2017
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10632 / 2017
1. Ratanlal Son of Shri Uderamji Jat, Aged About 52 Years,
Resident of Village- Khandel, Gram Panchayat, Lapsiya,
Tehsil Railmagra, Dist- Rajsamand (Raj.)
2. Mohanlal Son of Shri Uderamji Jat, Aged About 57 Years,
Resident of Village- Khandel, Gram Panchayat, Lapsiya,
Tehsil Railmagra, Dist- Rajsamand (Raj.)
3. Kishanlal Son of Shri Uderamji Jat, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident of Village- Khandel, Gram Panchayat, Lapsiya,
Tehsil Railmagra, Dist- Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway,
Government of India, Through Secretary, Transport Bhawan
No. 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001
2. The National Highway Authority of India, Through Chairman,
G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. The Prescribed Authority (land Acquisition and Additional
District Magistrate), Collectorate- Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand. (Raj.)
4. Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit 6-A-1
R.C. Vyas Colony Bhilwara 311001
----Respondents
CONNECTED WITH
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10629 / 2017
1. Madan Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Village, Negdiya Kheda, Tehsil Gangapur, Dist- Bhilwada.
2. Udai Ram S/o Chenna Kharol, Aged About 69 Years
3. Mukesh S/o Nanalal Jat, Aged About 37 Years
4. Ganesh S/o Aakheram Rao, Aged About 57 Years,
Petitioner 2 to 4 Are Resident of Village - Khandel, Tehsil
Railmagra, Dist- Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India Through Ministry of Road, Transport and
Highway, Government of India, Through Secretary, Transport
Bhawan No. 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001
(2 of 6)
[CW-10632/2017]
2. The National Highway Authority of India, Through Chairman,
G 5 & 6, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. The Prescribed Authority (land Acquisition and Additional
District Magistrate), Collectorate- Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand. (Raj.)
4. Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit 6-A-1
R.C. Vyas Colony Bhilwara 311001
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10634 / 2017
1. Govind Lal S/o Gomalal, Aged About 47 Years
2. Amba Bai W/o Late Goma Lal, Aged About 75 Years, Both
Resident of Village - Dhoinda, Tehsil Rajsamand, Dist-
Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India Through Ministry of Road, Transport and
Highway, Government of India, Through Secretary, Transport
Bhawan No. 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001
2. The National Highway Authority of India, Through Chairman,
G 5 & 6, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. The Prescribed Authority (land Acquisition and Additional
District Magistrate), Collectorate- Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand. (Raj.)
4. Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit 6-A-1
R.C. Vyas Colony Bhilwara 311001
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10635 / 2017
Ramlal S/o Nathu Kumawat, Aged About 94 Years, Resident of
Dhoinda, Tehsil Rajsamand, Dist- Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India Through Ministry of Road, Transport and
Highway, Government of India, Through Secretary, Transport
Bhawan No. 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001
2. The National Highway Authority of India, Through Chairman,
G 5 & 6, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition and Additional
District Magistrate), Collectorate- Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand. (Raj.)
(3 of 6)
[CW-10632/2017]
4. Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit 6-A-1
R.C. Vyas Colony Bhilwara 311001
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10637 / 2017
Jawaharlal Son of Chuna Ji, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Tarasinghda, Tehsil & Dist- Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India Through Ministry of Road, Transport and
Highway, Government of India, Through Secretary, Transport
Bhawan No. 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001
2. The National Highway Authority of India, Through Chairman,
G 5 & 6, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
3. The Prescribed Authority (land Acquisition and Additional
District Magistrate), Collectorate- Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand. (Raj.)
4. Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit 6-A-1
R.C. Vyas Colony Bhilwara 311001
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10654 / 2017
1. Bherulal Son of Khema, Aged About 65 Years
2. Hazari Son of Khema, Aged About 63 Years
3. Ramesh Son of Heera, Aged About 38 Years
4. Pyarchandra Son of Heera, Aged About 35 Years
5. Kalu Son of Heera, Aged About 30 Years
6. Anchi W/o Heera, Aged About 65 Years, All Residents of
Village- Khandel, Gram Panchayat, Lapsiya, Tehsil Railmagra,
Dist- Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India Through the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet
Secretrate Govt. of India, New Delhi- 110004
2. The National Highway Authority of India, Through Chairman,
G-5&6, Sector- 10, Dwarka New Delhi.
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition and Additional
District Magistrate), Collectrate- Rajsamand, District
Rajsamand, (Raj.).
(4 of 6)
[CW-10632/2017]
4. Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit, 6-A-1,
R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara 311001
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Sisodia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Bishnoi
Mr. Vinit Sanadhya
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 11/09/2017 Mr. B.L. Bishnoi and Mr. Vinit Sanadhya accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. Hence, notice need not be issued. Copy of the writ petitions have already been supplied to them.
By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to re-determine the amount of compensation and other benefits awarded by the competent authority for the land acquired, while complying with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act of 2013").
The facts relevant are that the petitioners' land was acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). The competent authority determined the compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioners are that the award in question has been passed by the competent authority after 31.12.14 by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the (5 of 6) [CW-10632/2017] Act of 2013 inserted vide the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, re-incorporated vide the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, promulgated by the President of the Republic of India, the determination of the compensation was required to be made in accordance with the provisions contained in First Schedule of the Act of 2013 whereas, the compensation has been determined by the competent authority keeping in view the provisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956.
It is not disputed by the counsels appearing for the Union of India and the National Highways Authority before this Court that by virtue of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the Act of 2013 in force at the relevant time, the competent authority was required to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners for the land acquired, taking into consideration the components as set out in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013.
As a matter of fact, the issue regarding applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2013 for determination of compensation in cases where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1956 but, award has not been declared till 31st of December, 2014, was considered by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and vide circular dated 3rd of February, 2016, while (6 of 6) [CW-10632/2017] accepting the legal opinion tendered by Additional Solicitor General of India, it has been clarified that even where the award of compensation under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 was declared by competent authority on or before 31st of December, 2014 but compensation in respect of majority of the land area notified in the relevant 3A notification was not deposited in the account of beneficiaries on or before 31st of December, 2014, all the beneficiaries shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013.
It is not disputed that in the instant case, the award has been passed after 31.12.14 and therefore, even otherwise, as per the categorical stand taken by the Union of India and the National Highways Authority by virtue of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the Act of 2013 in force at the relevant time, the compensation payable to the petitioners for the land acquired has to be re-determined as per the provisions of the Act of 2013.
In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the respondents to re-determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J. Abhishek Kumar S.Nos.106-110 & 113