The Bombay High Court has held that things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and benefits arising out of land is to be treated as 'Land' as per Fair Compensation Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice S.V. Gangapurwala was adjudicating upon a writ seeking directions for proper compensation in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
"term ‘land’ defined under Section 3(p) of the Act of 2013 includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth."
The petitioner herein had agricultural land acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The grievance of the petition is in reagrd to determination of inadequate compensation on account of well, fruit bearing tress, pipeline, bore well etc. Even though the award was revised, it has been alleged by the petitioner
The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the subsequent measurement report demonstrates the existence of well, pipelines and additional trees, but it has not been considered in either of the award.
He submitted that unless these items are incorporated in the award he cannot seek compensation on said ground before the competent forum provided under Section 3-G(5) of the Act of 1956.
Respondents contended that despite grant of adequate compensation, Petitioner had filed various complaints and that by way of supplementary award, adequate compensation has been granted calling no indulgence in writ jurisdiction.
The Court at the outset noted that the record indicates that, after initial award, on the basis of valuation report, supplementary award enhancing the amount of compensation has been passed. Though second or corrected award is not permissible, it is not at the detriment of the Petitioner.
Noting that it is not possible in writ jurisdiction to examine factual aspect whether there was subsequent improvement and plantation, the Court pointed out that supplementary award indicates that additional compensation has been awarded on account of fruit bearing trees and pipeline.
The Court observed that Section 28 of the Act, 2013 which lays down the parameters to be considered while determining the award does not restrict the considerations only to the extent of actual land acquired rather the residuary provision in it encompasses all relevant factors which are beneficial to the affected families.
The Court dismissed the writ in face of the fact that Clause (5) to Section 3-G of the Act of 1956 provides a statutory remedy of Arbitrator to be appointed by Central Government in case of dissatisfaction.
"Clause seven to Section 3-G of the Act contemplates various factors to be considered by Arbitrator while adjudicating the claim. Particularly under Sub-clause (c) to Section 3-G (7) the damages affecting the earning can be considered."
The Court remarked that the factors which are not allegedly considered cannot be agitated before statutory authority.
"The law provides adequate remedy of statutory Arbitration for the redressal of grievance. We hope and trust that statutory Arbitrator will consider all factors in accordance with law."
Case Title: Ganesh Nivrutti Ghadge vs State of Maharshtra
Case Details: WRIT PETITION NO. 6324 OF 2021
Coram: Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice S.V. Gangapurwala
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
