Disposed

Satish Dnyanoba Jagtap and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC16 Nov 2016WP/6493/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that as the Income Tax Department is not a party, deduction of TDS cannot be examined. Challenging compensation methodology and multiplier must be approached before the Arbitrator under section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to file claim with Arbitrator within one month. Writ petitions disposed.

Satish Dnyanoba Jagtap and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

32.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 32 WRIT PETITION NO. 6493 OF 2016

¶4

SATISH DNYANOBA JAGTAP AND OTHERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. A. N. Nagargoje h/for Mr. D.
M. Mane And Mr. R K Shingnapure

¶9

Advocate for Respondent No.1 :Mrs. Dipali S. Ansingkar-Jape,

¶10

Standing counsel.

¶11

Advocate for Respondent No.2 :Ms P. S. Talekar i/by Talekar
and Associates

¶12

AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 State: Mrs. M.A. Deshande

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIH PETITION NO.6486/2016

¶15

HIMMATSINH DESAI DESHMUKH

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶18

...

¶19

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. N. V. Gaware

¶20

Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 :Ms P. S. Talekar i/by

¶21

Talekar and Associates

¶22

AGP for Respondent NoS.2,4 & 5 State: Mrs. M.A. Deshande

¶23

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:16th November, 2016

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

1. The petitioners' grievance in the present

¶26

petitions is with regard to the quantum of compensation
paid to them by the applying erroneous multiplier so
also deduction of TDS.

¶27

2. As far as deduction of TDS is concerned, the

¶28

Income Tax Department is not party to the present writ
petitions. In absence of Income Tax Department, it will

¶29

1/4

¶30

32.odt

¶31

not be possible to consider the case of the petitioners
to the extent of deduction of TDS. The petitioners may
raise their challenge with regard to the deduction of
tax at source in appropriate proceedings, as may be
permissible in law.

¶32

3. One of the contention of the petitioners is that
the deduction has been made while considering the area
of the land in awarding compensation. If the land is
below 2000 square meters, then 100% compensation is
paid. If land acquired is between 2001 to 4000 square
meters, then 80% compensation is considered. The said
percentage goes on decreasing as the area of land
increases. According to the learned counsel, the said
methodology adopted while computing the compensation is
erroneous.

¶33

4. Other objection raised is with regard to the
multiplier applied. According to the learned counsel,
on the date of publication of notification under
section 3-A of the the National Highways Act, 1956,

¶34

the acquired land was situated within the limits of
village panchayat, however, on the date the award was
passed, the land came within the vicinity of Nagar
Panchayat. According to the petitioners, valuation has

¶35

2/4

¶36

32.odt

¶37

to be made as on the date of notification under section
3-A of the National Highways Act.

¶38

5. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition
that the market value of the land acquired has to be
determined on the date of notification under Section 3-
A of the National Highways Act, 1956. Reference can
be had to sub section 7 of section 3-G of the National
Highways Act. As per the schedule attached to the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
if the land is situated in the rural area, multiplier
factor is 2 and for the land situated in other areas,
the multiplier factor defers.

¶39

6. As per section 3-G(5) of the National Highways
Act, 1956, if any dispute arises with regard to the
determination of compensation amount, the parties have
remedy to approach the Arbitrator. As such, the parties
have to approach the Arbitrator for claiming
enhancement of compensation amount and while doing so

¶40

the Arbitrator can consider whether the correct
methodology has been applied while computing the
compensation amount including the multiplier factor,
considering the fact that the market value is to be

¶41

3/4

¶42

32.odt

¶43

determined on as on the date of notification under
Section 3-A of the National Highways Act which, in this
case is of 24.03.2013.

¶44

7. The petitioners may file their claim with the
Arbitrator within one month from today. If the said
application is filed, the Arbitrator shall consider all
the grievances that would be raised by the petitioners

¶45

and as observed in the present order. The said
proceedings be decided expeditiously.

¶46

8. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No

¶47

costs.

¶48

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶49

JPC

¶50

4/4

Satish Dnyanoba Jagtap and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Dnyanoba Jagtap and Others v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyanada Bhagyaravi Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagirathi Gangadhar Bhujbal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Suresh Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahadeo Education Trust and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vaibhav Vitthalrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Eshwar Dnyanoba Nagargoje and Others Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed and Others