WP.2438.13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2438 OF 2013
Kishor s/o Shankarrao Choudhari,
aged about 42 years, Occ. Social
Worker and Member Panchayat
Samiti Saoner, R/o Mu. Post
Dahegaon Rangari, Taluka Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur. .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1] Union of India, through its
Secretary, Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways,
Dwarka, New Delhi,
2] National Highway Authority
of India, through its Project
Director, Project Implementation
Unit, Pandhurna, Madhya Pradesh,
3] Deputy Collector, Being the
Competent Authority and Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Land
Acquisition (General), Office of
the Collector, Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
Mr. P.S. Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner,
Mr. U.M. Aurangabadkar, ASGI for respondent no. 1,
Mr. A.V. Kathane, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, A.G.P. for respondent no. 3.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:13:47 :::
WP.2438.13 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.). 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally.
2] The petitioner challenges validity of Section 3-G & 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956 on the ground that the petitioner cannot be denied solatium and interest.
3] Perusal of paragraph no. 8 of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunita Mehra & another .vs. Union of India & others reported in 2016(8) SCALE 582 shows that Hon'ble Apex Court has already observed that similar course as followed by it in the case of Gurpreet Singh .vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457, should be followed while dealing with acquisitions under National Highways Act, 1956. It is accordingly directed that award of solatium and interest on solatium should be made effective only to proceedings pending on the date of High Court order in that matter, i.e. dated 28.3.2008.
4] In view of these observations of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:13:47 ::: WP.2438.13 3 apparent that argument of unconstitutionality is erroneous and benefit of solatium and interest has been made available to the proceedings if same were pending on 28.3.2008.
5] In the present matter, the proceedings were pending on that date and award has been passed on 18.1.2013. 6] Respondent no.2 in reply has relied upon the pendency of challenge to judgment of Madras High Court before Hon'ble Apex Court. It is not in dispute that said controversy is also concluded vide judgment reported in Union of India & another .vs. T. Chakrapani & others reported in 2016(8) SCALE 585 in favour of land owners. In fact, there the learned Solicitor General of India had made a statement to extend identical relief.
7] However, in present matter respondents pointed out that in paragraph 8 in the case of Sunita Mehra (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed that concluded cases should not be opened. Mr. A.V. Kathane, learned Advocate for respondent no. 2, pointed out that petitioner Kishor had filed Reference proceedings and those Reference proceedings are already finally decided. According to Mr. ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:13:47 ::: WP.2438.13 4 P.S. Tiwari, learned Advocate for petitioner, proceedings were pending on 28.3.2008.
8] The directions of Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 8 envisage proceedings pending on 28.3.2008. The proceedings already concluded before that date could not have been and cannot be reopened. Even if we accept contention of respondents, it is apparent that after award delivered in January, 2013, reference proceedings were pending and have been decided somewhere in 2016. Thus, that adjudication is after filing of present Writ Petition. 9] In this situation, we find present petitioner entitled to relief of solatium and interest in terms of statement made by learned Solicitor General of India and recorded in the case of Union of India & another .vs. T. Chakrapani & others (cited supra). Accordingly, we direct the respondents to pay the same to petitioner within next three months.
10] With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
J. JUDGE JUDGE.
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:13:47 :::