Naresh Surana v. Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9597 /2016 1.Paras Kawad S/o Shri Jawari Lal, aged about 41 years, by caste Oswal, R/o A-183, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur. 2.Sanjay Surana S/o Lal Chand Surana, by caste Oswal, R/o Plot No.49, Income Tax Colony, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. 3.Naresh Surana S/o Lal Chand Surana, by caste Oswal, R/o Plot No.49, Income Tax Colony, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1.Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India, New Delhi.Transport and Highway, Government of India, New Delhi. 2.The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) 3.The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) and Additional District Collector-III, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.District Collector-III, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4.The Project Director and Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.)Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.) ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Pradeep Swami, for the petitioners. Mr.Mukesh Dave, Dy.Govt. Counsel, for the State. Mr.B.P.Bohra, for Union of India. Mr.Vinit Sanadhya, for National Highway Authority of India. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHAOrder 27/03/2017 1.By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are seekingdirections to the respondents to re-determine the amount ofcompensation and other benefits awarded by the competent authority for the land acquired, while complying with theprovisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short“the Act of 2013”). 2.The facts relevant are that the petitioners’ land was acquiredunder the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short“the Act of 1956”). The competent authority determined thecompensation in terms of the provisions of Section 3G of the Actof the Act of 1956. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioners isthat the award in question having been passed by the competentauthority after 31.12.14 by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section105 inserted vide the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement(Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, re-incorporated vide the Right toFair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) SecondOrdinance, 2015, promulgated by the President of the Republic ofIndia, the determination of the compensation was required to bemade in accordance with the provisions contained in FirstSchedule of the Act of 2013 whereas, the compensation has beendetermined by the competent authority keeping in view theprovisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956. 3.It is not disputed by the counsels appearing for the Union ofIndia and the National Highway Authority before this court that byvirtue of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the Act of 2013 in force at the relevant time, the competent authority wasrequired to determine the compensation payable to the petitionersfor the land acquired, taking into consideration the components asset out in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013. 3.It is not disputed by the counsels appearing for the Union ofIndia and the National Highway Authority before this court that byvirtue of provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the Act of 2013 in force at the relevant time, the competent authority wasrequired to determine the compensation payable to the petitionersfor the land acquired, taking into consideration the components asset out in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013. 4.As a matter of fact, the issue regarding applicability of theprovisions of the Act of 2013 for determination of compensation incases where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under theAct of 1956 but, award has not been declared till 31[st] of December,2014, was considered by the Ministry of Road Transport &Highways and vide circular dated 3[rd] of February, 2016, whileaccepting the legal opinion tendered by Additional SolicitorGeneral of India, it has been clarified that even where the awardof compensation under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 was declaredby competent authority on or before 31[st] of December,2014 butcompensation in respect of majority of the land area notified inthe relevant 3A notification was not deposited in the account ofbeneficiaries on or before 31[st] of December, 2014, all thebeneficiaries shall be entitled to compensation in accordance withprovisions of the Act of 2013. 5.It is not disputed that in the instant case, the award hasbeen passed after 31.12.14 and therefore, even otherwise, as perthe categorical stand taken by the Union of India and the NationalHighways Authority by virtue of provisions of sub-section (3) ofSection 105 of the Act of 2013 in force at the relevant time, thecompensation payable to the petitioners for the land acquired hasto 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 amountof compensation payable to the petitioners in accordance with theprovisions of the Act of 2013. The entire exercise shall becompleted within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA)J. Aditya/