The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the new claim for enhancement of compensation from NHAI based on subsequent change of land use is barred by limitation.
The bench observed that the cause of action for referring the dispute to an arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 arises on the date of the determination of the amount of compensation by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) of the Act.
Brief Facts:
The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was filed against the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by Collector District Guna in Case No.04/Appeal/2022-23, whereby the application filed challenging the award dated 26.12.2012 passed by National Highways Authority of India in the land acquisition proceedings, whereby treating a diverted land to be agricultural land, the award was passed, was rejected and, the Collector while passing the impugned order dismissed the proceedings referred to him under the provisions of Section 3 G (6) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as barred by Limitation Act. Hence the present petition.
Contentions of the appellant:
It was argued that the cause of action which accrued to the petitioner was only after 2018 when the revenue entries were corrected and the name of the petitioner was included in the revenue records and as there is no period of limitation prescribed under the National Highways Act, 1956, the residuary Clause of Article 113/137 of the Limitation Act would be applicable for which the period of limitation is three years and as after 2018, the said reference was made within the period of three years as provided under the residuary Clause of the Limitation Act the reference was within limitation. Moreover, the learned Collector while dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act holding it to be time-barred by 9 years reckoning the period of limitation from the date of the award was per se illegal.
It was further argued that passing of an award of the disputed land was acquired by the petitioner in the year, 2018 that award was passed treating it to be agricultural land, and as it came to her knowledge only in the year, 2018, therefore, as per the aforesaid residuary clause of the Limitation Act, the reference was well with limitation and the learned Collector has misdirected himself in passing the impugned order and rejected the reference on the point of limitation.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned AAG appearing on advance copy submitted that from the facts on record, it is revealed that the order of diversion is of the date 31.03.2006 and the land which is said to have been diverted was acquired in the year, 2012. This fact was very well known to the petitioner, but instead of referring the matter to the arbitrator as provided under Section 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner kept a blissful silence and never challenged the award of land acquisition passed on 26.12.2012, whereby treating the land to be agricultural land an award of Rs. 14,850/- was passed.
It was further argued that the petitioner is reckoning the period of limitation from the date when the entries in the revenue records with regard to the diversion were made by the revenue authorities in the record and from the date when the matter was first referred to the Project Director in the year, 2021 and though there is no limitation provided under the National Highways Act, 1956, the period of limitation construed to have taken place within the period of three years, therefore, cannot be said to be sustainable as admittedly the order of diversion has been passed in the year, 2006 and at the time of passing of the award dated 26.12.2012, it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that the land was a diverted land and the plea of the petitioner that she is an illiterate lady is of no help.
Observations of the Court:
The bench taking note of Section 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 remarked, “From the aforesaid provisions it is very much clear that if the amount which is determined by the competent authority under sub-Section 1 and 2 is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government and admittedly at the time when the award was passed, the Commissioner was the authority who was appointed as an Arbitrator vide notification dated 31.12.2001. It was only in January, 2022 that the said authority was changed and the Collector was made the Arbitrator.”
The bench further noted that it was for the first time in the year, 2021, that the petitioner had approached any authority challenging the order of the acquisition passed in the year, 2012, thereafter with the advent of the notification of the Government, whereby the Collector was made the arbitrator, she was referred to the Collector and for the first time, the matter was kept before the Collector after the period of 9 years from passing of the award for its adjudication.
The bench further remarked, “Though it is also an admitted fact that no case of limitation has been prescribed under the National Highways Act, 1956 in such cases the residuary clause as contained under Article 113/137 of the Limitation Act can be said to be applicable, wherein a period of limitation of 3 years is provided, but the aforesaid period of 3 years could be reckoned only from the date of cause of action and admittedly the cause of action to the petitioner has arisen in the year, 2012 as and when the award of land acquisition was passed and the fact of passing of the award was well within the knowledge of the petitioner.”
The bench further remarked that though, the petitioner had the remedy of approaching the then arbitrator as appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act as provided under Section 3G (5), the remedy available to the petitioner was not availed and it was after the lapse of 9 years that the said reference was made which cannot be said to be within the limitation. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Collector was right in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as time-barred.
Judgment:
Accordingly, the petition being sans merit was dismissed by the court.
Case Title: Sarvesh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Coram: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
Case no.: Writ Petition No. 13266 of 2023
For Petitioner: Akram Khan
For Respondents: Vivek Khedkar –AAG
Picture Source :
