Meenaben Bharatbhai Solanki vs The Competent Authority National ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12410 Guj

     C/SCA/11906/2021                              ORDER DATED: 25/08/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11906 of 2021
==========================================================
                MEENABEN BHARATBHAI SOLANKI
                            Versus
    THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
                            INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS. ADITI S RAOL(8128)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MR. MEET THAKKAR, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for
the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR. MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE 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 : 25/08/2021
                        ORAL ORDER

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

1 We have heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel along with

Ms.Aditi Raol, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Meet Thakkar,

learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - Special

Land Acquisition Officer and Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2-N.H.A.I.

2 By means of this petition under Article 226 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

C/SCA/11906/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2021

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) Diary 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.Meet 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 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

C/SCA/11906/2021 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2021

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 Mr.Meet Thakkar, learned Assistant

Government Pleader that if the present petitioners have moved for

redetermination 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.Shalin Mehta, learned

counsel 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 this petition 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

12.09.2021 and as clarified above to be determined under the 1956 Act.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal