Parmar Sahebsinh Gulabsinh ... vs The Competent Authority National ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12252 Guj

     C/SCA/11823/2021                                        ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11823 of 2021
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11824 of 2021
                                 With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11825 of 2021

==========================================================
       PARMAR SAHEBSINH GULABSINH (DECD.) THROUGH LHRS
                            Versus
    THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
                            INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE with MR ADITI S RAOL(8128) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MR MEET THAKKAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS MANVI DAMLE for MR MAULIK NANAVATI for NANAVATI & CO.(7105)
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
          VIKRAM NATH
          and
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                                  Date : 24/08/2021

                               COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)

1 We have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aditi Raol, learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Manvi Damle, learned advocate for Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned Advocate for respondent - NHAI and Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents.

2 By means of this petition under Article 226

C/SCA/11823/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking benefit of judgment and order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in a group of writ petitions, the leading case being Special Civil Application No.8734 of 2019 and in particular the benefits extended vide paragraph 21 of the said judgment. According to learned Senior Counsel, the case of the petitioners is identical to the group of cases decided vide judgment dated 12.09.2019. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.09.2019 has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court as the SLP (Civil) Dairy No.18777 of 2020 filed by the State was dismissed. The affidavit in reply on behalf of the State respondents does not dispute the fact that the petitioners' land is also falling within rural area and they would be entitled to the benefit of Factor 2, which had been extended by the aforesaid judgment dated 12.09.2019.

3               Mr.       Thakkar,          learned          AGP,          however,
submitted          that    apparently          the    State       can       have       no

objection to the relief claimed by the petitioners, as granted vide paragraph 21 of the judgment dated 12.09.2019. However, as the acquisition was under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, `1956 Act'), the compensation and other ancillary benefits would be admissible as per the 1956 Act and the provisions of The Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would only be admissible to the extent permitted

C/SCA/11823/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

under the 1956 Act. As such, this aspect may be clarified that the competent authority under the 1956 Act may redetermine the compensation and other benefits as per the judgment dated 12.09.2019, para 21 thereof in particular, keeping in mind the benefits admissible under the 1956 Act.

4 Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate has no objection to this slight modification, which apparently is correct also.

5 It has been pointed out by learned Government Pleader that if the present petitioners have moved for re-determination of compensation before the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioners may not insist for Factor-2 claim or in the alternative the respondents may be permitted to apprise the Arbitrator of the said issue so that there is no further multiplicity or complication in the proceedings. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners would not insist for Factor-2 before the Arbitrator as they would be getting the benefit of Factor-2 under the present orders.

6 We accordingly dispose off these petitions directing that the competent authority would issue a fresh or revised award, as may be considered extending the benefits given by para 21 of the judgment dated 12.09.2019 and as clarified above to

C/SCA/11823/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/08/2021

be determined under the 1956 Act.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM