Disposed

Udaylal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2018CW/1945/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Coordinate Bench of this Court directed respondents to re-determine compensation payable to petitioners for acquired land under National Highways Act, 1956 in accordance with Rights to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as compensation determination occurred after 31.12.2014.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to re-determine compensation in accordance with RTP&CR Act, 2013 within three months.

Udaylal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1945 / 2018

¶3

Udaylal S/o Bhura Bhel, Aged About 58 Years

¶4

Maganlal S/o Bhura Bhel, Aged About 58 Years

¶5

Suresh S/o Ghasi Ram Bhel, Aged About 32 Years

¶6

Bhagwanlal S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 44 Years

¶7

Dinesh S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 29 Years

¶8

Rajulal @ Rajkumar S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 24 Years, All Resident of Village - Bhagwanda Khurd, Tehsil & Dist- Rajsamand (Raj.).

¶9

----Petitioners Versus

¶10

Union of India Through Ministry of Road, Transport and Highway, Government of India, Through Secretary, Transport Bhawan- 1 Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001

¶11

The National Highway Authority of India, Through Chairman, G- 5&6, Sector- 10, Dwarka New Delhi.

¶12

The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition), Additional District Collector and Additional District Magistrate, CollectrateRajsamand (Raj.).

¶13

Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit, Panchwati, Udaipur

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Sisodiya

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order

¶18

08/02/2018

¶19

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

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CW-1945/2018]

¶22

Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶23

No.13114/2016) decided on 27.03.2017.

¶24

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

¶25

(supra) has passed the following decision :-

¶26

“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”).

¶27

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.

¶28

It is not disputed by the counsels appearing for the Union of India and the National Highway Authority before

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

[CW-1945/2018]

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.”

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[CW-1945/2018]

¶37

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 referred above.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

In view of the above submissions made by learned counsels 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

¶40

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

¶41

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶42

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶43

Gaurav/167

Udaylal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaylal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Rajendra Kumar Vs Prescribed Auth.Cum Sub Div.Officer andANR

Chetan Ram Vs State

Sajjan Kanwar Vs Hpcl and Ors.

Keshar Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mala Sharma Vs Suresh Chandra Sharma and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Smt.Sukhi