Jubeda Musa Vali vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 12808 Guj

     C/SCA/11985/2021                               ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11985 of 2021

==========================================================
                           JUBEDA MUSA VALI
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:

DELETED(20) for the Petitioner(s) No. 43
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,11.1,11.2,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3
,30,31,31.1,31.10,31.2,31.3,31.4,31.5,31.6,31.7,31.8,31.9,32,33,34,35,36,37,
38,39,4,40,41,42,44,45,46,47,48,5,6,6.1,6.2,6.3,6.4,6.5,7,8,9
MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH(5403) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,11.1,11.2,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,3
,30,31,31.1,31.10,31.2,31.3,31.4,31.5,31.6,31.7,31.8,31.9,32,33,34,35,36,37,
38,39,4,40,41,42,44,45,46,47,48,5,6,6.1,6.2,6.3,6.4,6.5,7,8,9
MR MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

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


                             Date : 27/08/2021

                              ORAL ORDER

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

1. We have heard Shri Nirad Buch, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent NHAI and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents.

C/SCA/11985/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

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 judgment. According to learned 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 Factor2, which had been extended by the aforesaid judgment dated 12.09.2019.

3 Ms. Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader, 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

C/SCA/11985/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/08/2021

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 Shri Buch has no objection to this slight modification, which apparently is correct also.

5 It has been pointed out by learned Asst. 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. Shri 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 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 12.09.2019 and as clarified above to be determined under the 1956 Act.

(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA