Disposed

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

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2018CW/1946/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of a writ petition seeking redetermination of land acquisition compensation. Relying on a coordinate bench decision, the court directed respondents to recalculate compensation under 2013 Act provisions as the award was passed after the relevant cutoff date.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to redetermine the amount of compensation payable to petitioners in accordance with the 2013 Act within three months.

Keshar Singh and Anr. 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. 1946 / 2018

¶3

Keshar Singh S/o Nirbhay Singh Chauhan, Aged About 47 Years

¶4

Kamla Devi W/o Gheeshulal Dhobi, Aged About 60 Years, Both Resident of Village - Jawad, Tehsil Rajsamand, Dist- Rajsamand (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition and Additional District Magistrate), Collectrate- Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, (Raj.).

¶10

Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit, 6-A-1, R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara 311001

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Sisodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhya

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

08/02/2018

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

No.13114/2016) decided on 27.03.2017.

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CW-1946/2018]

¶21

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Man Singh (supra) has passed the following decision :-

¶22

“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”).

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CW-1946/2018]

¶27

acquired, taking into consideration the components as set out in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.”

¶31

Learned counsels for the parties have submitted that in the present case also the award has been passed after 31.12.2014

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-1946/2018]

¶34

and therefore, the present case is also governed by the decision referred above.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

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

¶37

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶38

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶39

Gaurav/168

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshar Singh and Anr. 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

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.

Mala Sharma Vs Suresh Chandra Sharma and Anr.

Udaylal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Smt.Sukhi