Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan vs Union Of India on 3 April, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 3455/2019
1. Ratan S/o Shri Prafulchand Badola, Aged About 26 Years,
Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-Rajsamand (Raj.).
2. Chaganlal S/o Shri Motilal, Aged About 85 Years, Village
Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-Rajsamand (Raj.).
3. Praful Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Mahajan, Aged About
67 Years, Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-Rajsamand
(Raj.).
4. Basant Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Mahajan, Aged About
65 Years, Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-Rajsamand
(Raj.).
5. Satyendra Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Mahajan, Aged
About 69 Years, Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-
Rajsamand (Raj.).
6. Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Mahajan, Aged
About 78 Years, Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-
Rajsamand (Raj.).
7. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Mahajan, Aged About 63
Years, Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-Rajsamand (Raj.).
8. Jagpremi S/o Shri Jagjeevan Badola, Aged About 48
Years, Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-Rajsamand (Raj.).
9. Seema W/o Shri Naveen Kumar, Aged About 36 Years,
Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-Rajsamand (Raj.).
10. Snehlata W/o Shri Parmeshwar, Aged About 39 Years,
Village Rajnagar, Tehsil And Dist-Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Road, Transport And
Highway, Government Of India, Through Secretary,
Transport Bhawan-1 Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001
2. The National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Chairman, G-5 And 6, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi.
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), Additional
District Collector And Additional District Magistrate,
Collectrate-Rajsamand (Raj.).
4. Project Director Nhai, Project Implementation Unit, 10 A,
Panchwati, Udaipur.
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:16:14 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-3455/2019]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SS Sisodia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet Sanadhaya
Ms. Sumeha Kall for Mr. Sanjeet
Purohit, ASG.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment / Order 03/04/2019 Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in this writ petition has been finally decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Man Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13114/2016), decided on 27.03.2017,wherein this Court has held as under:-
1. By way of this writ petition, 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").
2. 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 the Act of 1956. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioners is that the award in question having been passed by the competent authority after 31.12.14 by virtue of sub-section(3) of Section 105 inserted (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:16:14 PM) (3 of 5) [CW-3455/2019] 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.
3. It is not disputed by the counsels appearing for the Union of India and the National Highway 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.
4. 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 accepting the legal opinion (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:16:14 PM) (4 of 5) [CW-3455/2019] 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.
5. 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 subsection (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.
6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is 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."
It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that the award has been passed after 31.12.2014 and therefore, the controversy is squarely governed by the decision referred above.
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:16:14 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-3455/2019] In view of the above submissions, admitted factual and legal scenario, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Man Singh's case (supra). In case, any rival claims are received for the amount of compensation, the competent authority shall objectively consider the same before directing disbursal of the amount, as per law.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J ns. 67-/-
(Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 10:16:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)