Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 January, 2022
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Sandeep Moudgil
LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-1015-2021 (O&M)
Decided on:19. 01.2022.
MANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS
.....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate
for respondent No.2-NHAI.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
In the instant Intra-Court Appeal, quashing of order dated 12th October, 2021, passed by learned Single Judge has been sought on the ground that out of three, only two issues have been adjudicated upon, whereas one legal issue i.e. Issue No.3 has been kept open for further hearing.
Mr. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate for the appellants/ petitioners contends that the mandatory provisions of Sections 31, 32 and 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2013') have been misinterpreted and at the same time provisions of Sections 3- H (1) and 3-H (2) of National Highways Authority of India Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956) along-with notification dated 28th August, 2015 issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi, have been totally ignored.
Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners further advanced arguments primarily submitting that the provisions relating to compensation, 1 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 2 benefits and entitlement as provided under first, second and third Schedule of the Act of 2013 have not been read in true spirit, which otherwise are sufficient to fairly compensate, rehabilitate and resettle the families of affected land owners/ appellants/petitioners being the affected families and displaced families in view of Sections 3(c) and 3(k) of the Act of 2013 respectively.
Concluding the submissions, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has vehemently raised the issue seeking direction to the respondents to pass rehabilitation and resettlement award and possession be protected apart from providing infrastructural and other basic amenities in the proposed area of resettlement and grant compensation for entire structures alleging that fully furnished residential houses, showrooms, shops, godowns/stores, hospital, tiles, marble, sanitary showrooms and other structure exist on the land under acquisition.
Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has laid much stress on Section 38 of the Act of 2013 reading it in the manner that possession of the land/property cannot be taken without passing of the award ensuring that payment/benefits thereunder, have been paid/granted to the land owners.
Learned Single Judge, while passing the order dated 12th October, 2021 under challenge before this Court, framed the following questions for consideration after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties to the lis:
(i) Whether it is appropriate to continue with the interim protection which is an impediment in the progress of an infrastructural project i.e. construction/widening of National Highway merely because an independent award with respect to the rehabilitation and resettlement of the petitioners as envisaged under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
2 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 3 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as RFCTLARR Act 2013) has not been passed yet, with respect to the acquisition of the property under the 1956 Act?
(ii) Whether Section 38 of the RFCTLARR Act 2013 is applicable to the acquisition of the land/property under the 1956 Act?
(iii) Whether the competent authority for land acquisition appointed under the 1956 Act is required to pass an award for rehabilitation and resettlement of the owners who stand deprived of their property on account of its compulsory acquisition under the 1956 Act?
It is in the fittest of the facts of the present appeal to have a glance at Section 38 of the Act of 2013, which reads as under:-
38. Power to take possession of land to be acquired.-
(1) The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a period of three months for the compensation and a period of six months for the monetary part of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements listed in the Second Schedule commencing from the date of the award made under section 30:
Provided that the components of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package in the Second and Third Schedules that relate to infrastructural entitlements shall be provided within a period of eighteen months from the date of the award:
Provided further that in case of acquisition of land for irrigation or hydel project, being a public purpose, the rehabilitation and resettlement shall be completed six months prior to submergence of the lands acquired.
In response to the afore-said submissions, Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for respondent No.2-NHAI contends that Act of 1956 is a complete code and a special law whereas Act of 2013 is a general law and as such special law will prevail over the later. In support of his contention, he drew attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 103 and 105 of the Act of 2013 by addressing that the Act of 1956 is included in Schedule IV and therefore, the provisions of Act of 2013 will not be applicable in its entirety.
3 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 4 It has further been submitted that National Highway Authority is well within its legal right and is, in fact, under obligation to take possession of the acquired property under Section 3(E) of the Act of 1956, which is extracted as below:-
3-E. Power to take possession.--
(1) Where any land has vested in the Central Government under sub-
section (2) of section 3-D, and the amount determined by the competent authority under section 3-G with respect to such land has been deposited under sub-section (1) of section 3-H, with the competent authority by the Central Government, the competent authority may by notice in writing direct the owner as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within sixty days of the service of the notice. (2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with any direction made under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall apply--
(a) in the case of any land situated in any area falling within the metropolitan area, to the Commissioner of Police;
(b) in case of any land situated in any area other than the area referred to in clause (a), to the Collector of a District, and such Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be, shall enforce the surrender of the land, to the competent authority or to the person duly authorised by it. Mr. Madan, Advocate representing respondent No.2 further contends that the provisions of Act of 2013, are in addition and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. He has further referred to the amendments in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by Central Government which prohibits the Civil Courts from granting injunctions as far as it affects the progress of infrastructural projects.
On the question of notification dated 28th August, 2015, issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi, Mr. Madan submitted that it is merely a decision to extend the benefits relating to the determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement in consonance with the second Schedule of the Act of 2013.
4 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 5 Apart from above, bona-fide of appellants/petitioners has also been put to challenge with the fact that various other land owners, from the same acquisition proceedings, have approached this Court by filing CWP Nos. 27641 of 2018 and 8939 of 2020 involving similar question of law wherein, no interim protection was granted to the land owners. The respondent's learned counsel went on to say that the petitioners deceived to get ex-parte ad-interim order on 31st May, 2021 before the learned Single Judge.
In the light of such concealment of facts on the part of the appellants/petitioners an application for vacation of stay was preferred in CWP No. 10552 of 2021 along-with an application for preponement of hearing with the averment that such interim protection in favour of the land owners is causing hindrance in the progress of infrastructural project on Chandigarh- Ludhiana National Highway, which is, in fact, prone to accident and safety hazards.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 concluded his arguments finally submitting that since the acquisition proceedings are not even the subject matter in the writ petition, the grievance is only confined to compensation part and therefore, grant of stay on the project is absolutely unwarranted and against the public interest at large.
Having heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respective parties to the lis, there is no dispute to the fact that the question involved in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge is only qua the compensation that too specifically confined to the rehabilitation and resettlement purposes whereas there is no challenge to the acquisition proceedings.
5 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 6 Coming to the question No.1 dealt by learned Single Judge, as to whether an interim protection is an impediment in the progress of infrastructural project, has very rightly proceeded on to hear the main case while preponing the date allowing the CM-14188-CWP-2021 observing that an ex-parte order has been obtained while concealing the material facts from the Court. The Registry was directed to intimate the learned counsel representing the petitioners to come prepared for the final disposal on the preponed date i.e. 29th September, 2021. Though a defence has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners that the preponement of hearing in the main petition has been ordered at the back of learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, however, the record of the case file shows that due intimation was given to the counsel for the appellants/petitioners, who appeared before the learned Single Judge on 29th September, 2021 and even thereafter he was accommodated for a date to prepare the case.
On 4th October, 2021 the judgment was reserved after hearing counsel for the parties and parties were also permitted to file synopsis as is recorded in the order, which reads as under:-
Present- Mr. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. RS Madan, for NHAI.
*** The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.CM No.14829 of 2021
Allowed as prayed for.
Replication, reply to CM No.14189 of 2021 and Annexures P24 to P27 are taken on record.
6 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 7 Main Case With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard at length.
Judgment reserved.
Learned counsel representing the respondent has pointed out that a large number of writ petitions are being filed involving same issue through same counsel but through different petitioners. He submits that Sh. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate, has filed as many as 6 writ petitions and has not disclosed these facts in the writ petition.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the parties are permitted to file synopsis along with gist of their arguments within three working days in order to give opportunity to Sh. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate, to explain." It is in pursuance of such proceedings, the impugned order dated 12th October, 2021 came to be passed which has been assailed before this Court by way of instant Intra-Court Appeal.
It is evident from the plain reading of award dated 6th August, 2020 (Annexure P-1) that the land was acquired with the intent for building (widening, four-lanning etc.) maintenance, management and operation of 4/6 Lanning of Chandigarh-Kharar-Ludhiana NH-95 (New NH-05) from (Kharar) 10.185 kms to (Samrala Chowk) 86.199 kms in the State of Punjab on Hybrid Annuity Mode.
This Court cannot be ignorant of statutory provisions especially of Section 20(A) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 incorporated by Specific Relief (Amendment Act, 2018), which envisage that no injunction shall be granted by a court in a suit under this Act involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of such infrastructure project. Further explanation says that the "infrastructure project" would mean 7 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 8 the category of projects and infrastructure Sub-Sectors specified in the Schedule.
A perusal of the said schedule crystalizes at serial No.1 under category "Transport" at (a) the Road and Bridges.
Widening and four-lanning etc. of National Highways are such infrastructural projects of national importance which cannot be put to question at all and there is no hitch to record that the land in question has been acquired for development and progress of National Highway. It is also a fact that the land in question is urgently required for completion of bridge, which is necessary for the safety of road users and that particular stretch is accident and traffic hazard prone, as the traffic is passing through the diversions/service roads. Such averment is supported by letter dated 4th August, 2021 (Annexure R-2/2) written by Team Leader-cum-Sr. Highway Engineer to the Project Director, NHAI, PIU, Chandigarh, which shows 11 deaths and six injury cases, along-with particulars of 16 FIRs.
The fact of deposit of compensation as awarded vide award dated 6th August, 2021 has not been controverted. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners also failed to make out a case to dispute that the project is not of national importance concerning infrastructural development involving larger interest of the public.
This Court is also sanguine of the fact that where larger interest of public is involved, sanctity of date of completion of the project for construction and relevance or importance cannot be ignored on account of few numbered litigants, who are contesting only for the sake of determination of appropriate compensation.
8 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 9 The aspect of public interest over private rights assumes significance. To the specific queries, the appellants/petitioners failed to respond themselves contrary to the above. In an identical proposition, dealing with the mandate of Section 20(A) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the case of "Dyaneshwar and another vs. State of Maharashta" bearing Writ Petition No. 7621 of 2018, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has held that the said provisions clearly lay down that no injunction can be granted by the Court where a contract relating to infrastructural project specified in the schedule is involved, particularly, when grant of injunction would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of said project.
We are also conscious of the legal aspect as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty and others; 2011 (12) SCC 69, to the effect that the scope of judicial review is very limited and the court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides.
In the case in hand neither any violation of mandate of the Act of 1956 has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been put forth, rather the plea challenging the bona fide of the petitioners has force and such conduct is under cloud in the instant case.
This Court is convinced to conclude that learned Single Judge has duly applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case and material on record in the proper perspective while holding that the petitioners are not entitled for temporary injunction for having failed to establish prima- facie case in their favour as well as to show balance of convenience and above all have not approached the Court with clean hands.
9 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 10 Now coming to the question No.2, as to whether Section 38 of the Act of 2013, is applicable to the acquisition of land/property under the Act of 1956?
The whole argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners revolves around the words incorporated in Section 38 of the Act of 2013 "The Collector shall take possession of land after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are paid or tendered to the entitled persons within a time frame as specified therein."
The most noticeable fact is that the acquisition in the present case has been made under Section 3-A of the Act of 1956. The procedure of acquisition as relevant subsequent to issuance of notification under Section 3- A has been duly prescribed in Sections 3-D, 3-E, 3-F, 3-G and 3-H, which are necessarily to be looked into while examining the issue in hand.
3-D. Declaration of acquisition.--
(1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objection under sub- section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3- A. (2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under sub-section (1) of section 3-A for its acquisition but no declaration under sub-section (1) has been published within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect:
Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in
10 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 11 pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3- A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. (4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other authority.
3-E. Power to take possession.--
(1) Where any land has vested in the Central Government under sub- section (2) of section 3-D, and the amount determined by the competent authority under section 3-G with respect to such land has been deposited under sub-section (1) of section 3-H, with the competent authority by the Central Government, the competent authority may by notice in writing direct the owner as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorized by it in this behalf within sixty days of the service of the notice.
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with any direction made under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall apply--
(a) in the case of any land situated in any area falling within the metropolitan area, to the Commissioner of Police;
(b) in case of any land situated in any area other than the area referred to in clause (a), to the Collector of a District, and such Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be, shall enforce the surrender of the land, to the competent authority or to the person duly authorized by it.
3-F. Right to enter into the land where land has vested in the Central Government.--Where the land has vested in the Central Government under section 3-D, it shall be lawful for any person authorized by the Central Government in this behalf, to enter and do other act necessary upon the land for carrying out the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or a part thereof, or any other work connected therewith. 3-G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.-- (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.
(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.
11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 12 (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3-C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government--
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration--
(a)the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3-A;
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change. 3-H. Deposit and payment of amount.--
(1) The amount determined under section 3-G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land.
(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub- section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. (3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the 4 dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.
12 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 13 (5) Where the amount determined under section 3-G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent, per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3-D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.
(6)Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit.
In a case titled as Narmali Anjaiah & others Vs. State of Telangana bearing Writ Petition No.18479 of 2019 decided on 30.08.2019, similar issue came into consideration and it was observed that petitioners may make applications before the competent authorities with respect to rehabilitation and resettlement of component, if not satisfied with the compensation. The Karnataka High Court in Sri G.C. Thippeswamy and others Vs. Union of India, bearing Writ Petition No.6466 of 2017 decided on 16.4.2018 , discussing and examining the provisions of Sections 31, 38 and 105 along with 3rd Schedule of the Act of 2013 held that Section 105 of the said Act specifically excludes the applicability of the Act of 2013 to the special enactments, 13 in number, specified under the 4th Schedule of the Act of 2013. The Act of 1956 is at serial number 7 of the 4th Schedule besides other enactments like Electricity Act, 2003, Railways Act, 1985 etc. It has also gone to the extent of examining notification dated 28.08.2015 and held that though the aforesaid notification makes it very clear that new general law of land acquisition under the Act of 2013 is extended to apply to the land acquisition under the special enactments specified under the 4th Schedule only pertain to the provisions of the Act of 2013 for the determination of the compensation, which include monetary and indirect compensation in the form of 13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 14 rehabilitation and resettlement of the land losers under the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Schedule(s) of the Act.
The Karnataka High Court further held that if the petitioners/land owners are not satisfied with the monetary compensation awarded by the Competent Authority, they have a remedy of taking the matter further before the concerned authorities vis-a-vis a Civil Court in terms of Section 3-E and 3- H of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides for referral of the disputes concerning to the amount of compensation to the Arbitrator under Section 3-G of the said Act and, thus, recorded the finding that the petitioners have an alternative remedy for the said purpose.
In another matter i.e. CWP No.2879 of 2018 titled as Harwinder & others Vs. Union of India and others, vide order dated 24.07.2019 also adjudicated that there is an alternative remedy available as per Sections 3-E (5) & (6) of the Act of 1956, in case, the land owners are not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority.
It is also imperative to keep in mind the objective for framing a special law which is that National Highway Authority of India to ensure that it connects capitals, important places, ports and places of strategic importance of various States with each other. Such national highways are accountable for substantial quantum of the total traffic, for which Central Government is wholly responsible and answerable.
It is in this backdrop, a complete code in itself was framed by the law makers to speed up the infrastructural growth. This act in itself is explanatory, while elaborating the process of declaration of acquisition under Section 3-D with sub section (2) specifically stipulating that once the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1) of the said Section is made, 14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 15 the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances.
Further, a plain reading of Section 3-E makes it abundantly clear that once the land is vested in the Central Government under sub-section (2) of Section 3-D and the amount determined by the Competent Authority under Section 3-G is deposited with the competent authority by the Central Government, the Competent Authority may call upon the owners as well as any other person(s) who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver the possession thereof. In case any person refuses or fails to comply with such direction, the Competent Authority is empowered to take other measures, in accordance with law, as envisaged under sub-section 2 of Section 3-E. Further perusal of Section 3-F leaves no element of doubt in the mind of this Court that once the land is vested in the Central Government under Section 3-D, it shall be lawful for any person duly authorized by the Central Government in this behalf, to enter and do any other act necessary upon the land such as carrying out the building, maintenance, management or construction of a national highway or on a part thereof, apart from other purposes.
We have perused the provisions of Section 3-G and 3-H which are crystal clear to suggest that there is no embargo to say that the possession shall be taken only after ensuring that full payment of compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement and entitlement are paid, as envisaged vide Section 38 of the Act of 2013.
15 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 16 In the present case there is no question of any mala fides or unfair means in the process of land acquisition and determination of compensation to invite judicial interference.
Once a notification is issued particularly under Section 3-A of the Act of 1956, the whole process, so initiated including the passing of award, is within the parameters of Act of 1956 itself and no violation of any of the provisions of that Act could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellants/petitioners.
Sections 103 and 105 of the Act of 2013 read with Schedule IV of the said Act 2013 make it abundantly clear to conclude that the provisions of this Act, are in addition and not in derogation of, any other law.
The appellants/petitioners do have the remedy open under the law to approach the appropriate authority for disputing the quantum of compensation or determination of compensation of any component, if not awarded, but the provisions of Section 38 of the Act of 2013 would not be attracted for the purpose of taking over the possession keeping in view the provisions of Section 3-E of the Act of 1956 incorporated in the Special Act.
In the light of above discussion, this Court do not find any error in the order dated 12th October, 2021 as far as adjudication of Questions No.1 and 2 is concerned. It is also noted here that Question No.3, i.e., whether the competent authority for land acquisition appointed under the 1956 Act, is required to pass an award for rehabilitation and resettlement of the owners who stand deprived of their property on account of its 16 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 ::: LPA No.1015 of 2021 (O&M) 17 compulsory acquisition under the 1956 Act, is still pending for adjudication in the main writ petition, which is listed for hearing on 19th January, 2022.
Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed without costs.
Since the main appeal has been dismissed, all the pending civil misc. applications shall also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE JUDGE
19th January, 2022.
sham
1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
2. Whether reportable Yes/No
17 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 24-04-2022 11:59:33 :::