Gujarat High Court
Solanki Ghanshyambhai Ravjibhai vs The Competent Authority on 31 March, 2022
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/6264/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6264 of 2022
=============================================
SOLANKI GHANSHYAMBHAI RAVJIBHAI
Versus
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SARVASVA CHHAJAR for MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MR KM ANTANI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK NANAVATI for the Respondent (s) No. 2
MR KSHITIJ AMIN For the Respondent (s) No. 3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 31/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)
1. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Sarvasva Chhajar for Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi, appearing for the petitioners, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (National Highway Authority of India), and Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 07 20:09:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/6264/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022 India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to amend/modify/revise the award dated 05.09.2017 bearing no. L.A.Q. Vadodara -
Mumbai Expressway/Sherkhi Compensation Case No. 13 of 2013, and re-compute the compensation admeasuring 5671 Sq.mtrs., bearing block/survey no. 476/1 (New survey no. 847) in village Sherkhi, Taluka : Vadodara of the petitioner by multiplying the market value as determined under Section 26(1) of the of the LAAR Act, 2013 with a factor of "2" (two) and applying all other statutory benefits as provided under the LAAR Act, 2013 including solatium under Sec. 30 (1), interest under Section 30(3) and be further pleased to direct the respondents to pay the same, with interest from 05.09.2017 @ 9% for the first year and 15% per annum for subsequent years till date of realization within six weeks of the judgment;
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents from using altering, making any construction of any kind on the land of the petitioners;
(C) Grant such other and further relief(s) in the facts and circumstances of the present petition as deemed fit in the interest of justice."
3. It is the submission of Mr. Sarvasva Chhajar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are agriculturist and are holding total agricultural land bearing bock/survey No. 476/1 (New Survey No. 847) of Village Sherkhi, Tal. Vadodara, District Vadodara. The said land was partitioned Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 07 20:09:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/6264/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022 among the family members and the land was divided into Survey No. 476/1/P1 and 476/1/P2 for which revenue entry no. 10858 dated 23.05.20214 was mutated. The said land is under cultivation and the petitioners are totally dependent upon it for their livelihood. The land in question according to learned advocate Mr. Chhajar is not falling within the limits of any 'transitional area, smaller urban area or larger urban area' as defined and specified under Article 243Q (2) and is not part of any area falling within the limits of any Urban Local body or Municipality or Municipal Corporation and as such, the land in not covered under any urban area. According to learned advocate Mr. Chhajar, the major economic activity is agriculture and there are no significant non-agriculture activities in the village or surrounding area and the village limits of Vadodara Urban Development Authority, however, no T.P. Scheme is proposed in the area and the land is still in agriculture zone. It is contended that by virtue of Notification dated 09.01.2014, issued by the Government of India in exercise of power under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 the land of the petitioners was undertaken for acquisition for the purpose of construction of Vadodara-Mumbai Express way and by virtue of Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 07 20:09:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/6264/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022 further Notification under Section 3D, published on 29.12.2014, the land vested in respondent no. 3. It is contended that for the purpose of compensation, the competent authority passed an award on 05.09.2017 bearing No. LAQ/Vadodara-Mumbai Express Way/Sherkhi Compensation Case No. 13/2013 and the market value of the acquired land was arrived and though the acquired land is situated in rural area, the authority i.e. respondent No.2 applied factor 1 and not factor 2. Hence, the present petition. The main grievance raised in the petition is that erroneously respondent no. 2 authority applied factor 1 instead of factor 2.
4. At this juncture, learned counsels appearing for the respective parties submitted that the issue involved in this petition is identical to the issue decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Shah Rajesh Manibhai vs. National Highway Authority of India rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5913 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021. The said order is further based upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 12.09.2019 passed in a group of petitions led by Special Civil Application No. 8734 of 2019, which has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 07 20:09:42 IST 2022 C/SCA/6264/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022 filed by the State Government has been dismissed on 07.01.2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. being 18777 of 2020. It is also submitted that the issue in the present case is identical to the case of Dilipbhai Ganpatbhai Parmar vs. Competent Authority rendered in Special Civil Application No.12140 of 2021 dated 27.08.2021. It was, therefore, submitted that this petition may also be disposed of, following the order passed in Special Civil Application No.5913 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021. No other submissions were made.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - NHAI, further submitted that as in the other cases if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to Factor-"2" being applied for determination of compensation and other benefits, respondent No.2 - Authority shall make deposit within 21 days of such determination.
6. Thus, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in Special Civil Application No.5913 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021, the present petition is disposed of with the same directions and terms as contained in the order dated 23.04.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5913 of 2021. Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 07 20:09:42 IST 2022
C/SCA/6264/2022 ORDER DATED: 31/03/2022
7. However, it is clarified that if the petitioners have moved for re-determination of compensation before the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioners may not insist for Factor-"2" claim or in the alternative the respondents may be permitted to appraise the Arbitrator of the said issue, so that there is no further multiplicity or complications in the proceedings.
8. The present petition, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ) (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) phalguni Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 07 20:09:42 IST 2022