Disposed

Rajnikant Manilal Patel v. Competent Authority, National Highway Authority of India and Special Land Acquisition Officer

Gujarat HC10 Oct 2022SCA/20073/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Special Civil Application seeking redetermination of land acquisition compensation, the High Court of Gujarat disposed of the petition by relying on a coordinate bench's identical decision affixed factor application eligibility for rural lands under the LARR Act 2013 while clarifying procedural aspects of arbitrator recourse.

What did the court decide?

No direct relief granted; petition disposed following identical order in Special Civil Application No. 5913 of 2021 with directions regarding arbitrator proceedings.

Rajnikant Manilal Patel Vs Competent Authority, National… — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/20073/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20073 of 2022

¶4

=============================================

¶5

RAJNIKANT MANILAL PATEL

¶6

Versus

¶7

COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

¶8

=============================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR PANKEET P AUNDHIYA(9421) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KM ANTANI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1 MR MAULIK NANAVATI for the Respondent(s) No. 2 for Respondent (s) No. 3

¶11

=============================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶13

and

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

¶15

Date : 10/10/2022 ORAL ORDER

¶16

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

¶17

We have heard Mr.Pankeet Aundhiya, learned advocate appearing for petitioner, Mr.K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (National Highway Authority of India), who is permitted to file Vakaltnama and memo of appearance.

¶18

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

C/SCA/20073/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

¶21

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or or order and be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to amend/modify/revise the award dated 27/07/2022 bearing No.LAQ.Vadodara-Mumbai Express way/ Fajalpur (sakardada) Compensation Case No.9/2013 and re-compute the compensation qua the lands of the petitioners by multiplying the market value as determined under section 26(1) of the LARR, 2013 Act with factor of 2(two and applying all other statutory benefits as provided under the LARR Act, 2013 including solatium under Section 30(1), Interest under Section 30(3) and be further pleased to direct the respondents to pay the same, with interest from 27/07/2022 (date of award) @ 9% for the first year and 15% per annum for subsequent years till date of realization within 6 weeks of the Judgment;_

¶22

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, your lordship may be pleased to restrain the respondents from using, altering, making any construction of any kind on the land of the petitioners;

¶23

(C) Any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice;

¶24

(D) To provide for the cost of this petition.”

¶25

It is the submission of Mr.Pankeet Aundhiya, learned

¶26

advocate appearing for petitioner that the dispute pertains to land situated at Survey No.35 of Village Fajalpur (Sakadra), Taluka Vadodara Rural and District-

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

C/SCA/20073/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

¶29

Vadodara admeasuring 11,534 sq.mtrs. The land in question according to learned advocate Mr. Aundhiya 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.Aundhiya, the major economic activity is agriculture and there are no significant nonagriculture 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 03.03.2014, issued by the Government of India in exercise of power under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, the land of the petitioner was undertaken for acquisition for the purpose of construction of Vadodara-Mumbai Express way and by virtue of further Notification under Section

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

C/SCA/20073/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

¶32

3D, published on 05.03.2015, the land vested in respondent No. 3. It is contended that for the purpose of compensation, the competent authority passed an award on 27.07.2022 in Compensation Case No.9 of 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.

¶33

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

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

C/SCA/20073/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

¶36

affirmed by the Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition 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.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - NHAI, further submitted that as in the other cases if it is found that the petitioner is 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.

¶38

Thus, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in Special Civil Application No.5913 of 2021

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

C/SCA/20073/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2022

¶41

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.

¶42

However, it is clarified that if the petitioner has moved for re-determination of compensation before the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner 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.

¶43

The present petition, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

(ARAVIND KUMAR, CJ)

¶45

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

¶46

GAURAV J THAKER

¶47

Page 6 of 6

Rajnikant Manilal Patel v. Competent Authority, National Highway Authority of India and Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnikant Manilal Patel v. Competent Authority, National Highway Authority of India and Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipinchandra Purushottamdas Patel Vs Sardar Patel University

Thakkar Jayeshbhai Dhirubhai Vs State of Gujarat

Hiraji Shanaji Baraiya Since Expired through His Legal Heir Jasuji Hiraji Baraiya (Chauhan) Vs S B Vasava or His Successor in Office, Secretary Roads and Building Department

Manjuben Bhimabhai Paraliya Vs Navnath Gavhane, Ddo and or His Successor in Office

Dineshchandra Bhanjibhai Sureja Vs S J Haider, IAS or Her Successor in Office of Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat

Lakhubha Bhavansinh Solanki Vs Anilbhai Tulashibhai Dhameliya