Disposed

M/S. Uma Polymers Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2017CW/8288/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking redetermination of land acquisition compensation. Relying on a coordinate bench decision, the court directed respondents to re-calculate compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, as the award was passed after the cutoff date, completing the exercise within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to re-determine compensation under the RTFCTR Act, 2013 within three months; Stay petition disposed.

M/S. Uma Polymers Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8288 / 2017

¶3

M/s. Uma Polymers Ltd., Jodhpur Through Its Director Smt. Sarita Lodha W/o Shripalraj Lodha, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 66-67, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶7

The Chief Engineer (national Highway), Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) and Additional District Collector-III, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Project Director and Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave Mr. B.P. Bohra Mr. Rajat Arora for Mr. Sanjeet Purohit Mr. Ankur Mathur _____________________________________________________

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

26/07/2017

¶13

Learned counsels for the parties have submitted that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Man

¶14

Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13114/2016) decided on 27.03.2017.

¶15

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Man Singh

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

(supra) has passed the following decision :-

¶18

“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”).

¶19

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 vide the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, reincorporated 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.

¶20

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

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

out in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013.

¶23

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 31^st of December, 2014, was considered by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and vide circular dated 3^rd of February, 2016, while accepting the legal opinion 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 31^st 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 31^st of December, 2014, all the beneficiaries shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013.

¶24

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 sub-section (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 redetermined as per the provisions of the Act of 2013.

¶25

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.”

¶26

Learned counsels for the parties have submitted that in the present case also the award has been passed after 31.12.2014 and therefore, the present case is also governed by the decision

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

referred above.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

In view of the above submissions made by learned counsels

¶31

for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this

¶32

Court rendered in Man Singh’s case (supra).