Parmar Ramnikbhai Jethabhai vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 18273 Guj

      C/SCA/18057/2021                                ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18057 of 2021
                                   With
             CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18057 of 2021
==========================================================
                         PARMAR RAMNIKBHAI JETHABHAI
                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAURABH G AMIN(2168) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR KM ANTANI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK NANAVATI for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND
        KUMAR
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

                         Date : 09/12/2021
                      COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

1. Draft amendment is allowed. Necessary

incorporation be made forthwith.

2. We have heard Mr.Saurabh Amin, learned

counsel for the petitioners, Mr.K.M.Antani, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Mr.

Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent No.2

and Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India for respondent No.3.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed

C/SCA/18057/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

for the following reliefs:

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring that the impugned resolutions dated 10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018 (to the extent it is made prospective) issued by the Government of Gujarat, Revenue Department bearing No.LAQ 22-2014/179/GH. are null and void;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent number 2 to amend/modify/revise the award dated 29.02.2016 bearing no.LAQ.N.H.-8/Case No.3(17) Firozpur/2015 and award bearing No.LAQ.N.H.-8/CASE No.41, 79/(34),(54), Firozpur/2016 and recompute the compensation qua the land of the petitioner by multiplying the market value as determined under section 26(1) of the LARR, 2013 Act with a Factor of 2(two) and per S.26(2) and applying all other statutory benefits as provided under the LARR Act, 2013 including solatium under S.30(1), interest under S.30(3) and be further pleased to direct the respondents to pay the compensation so determined, with interest from 29.02.2016 @ 9% for the first year and 15% per annum for subsequent years till date of realization within 6 weeks of the judgment;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondents from using, altering, making any construction of any kind on the land of the petitioner;

(D) Pass other and further releases may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be granted."

C/SCA/18057/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

4. It is the contention of learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are

the owners and occupants of agricultural land bearing

Block/Survey No.84 situated at Village: Firozpur,

Taluka : Gandhinagar, District : Gandhinagar, which

was notified for acquisition by respondent No.2- NHAI

for the public purpose namely for broadening National

Highway No.8 and they were cultivating the said lands

and were dependant upon the same for their

livelihood. It is further contended that said land is

situated in a rural area falling within the limits of

Gram Panchayat of Firozpur and it does not fall under

limits of any transitional area Smaller Urban Area or

Larger Urban Area as defined under Article 243Q (2)

and if not part of any area falling within the limits

of any Urban Local Body. Hence, they have prayed for

suitable compensation being awarded to them.

5. At this juncture, learned counsels

appearing for the respective parties submitted that

the issue involved in this petition is identical to

the issue decided by the Coordinate Bench of this

Court in case of Shah Rajesh Manibhai vs. National

Highway Authority of India rendered in Special Civil

C/SCA/18057/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

Application No.5913 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021. The

said order is further based upon a Division Bench

judgment of this Court dated 12.09.2019 passed in a

group of petitions led by Special Civil Application

No. 8734 of 2019, which has since been affirmed by

the Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition filed

by the State Government has been dismissed on

07.01.2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary

No. being 18777 of 2020. It is also submitted that

the issue in the present case is identical to the

case of Dilipbhai Ganpatbhai Parmar vs. Competent

Authority rendered in Special Civil Application

No.12140 of 2021 dated 27.08.2021. It was, therefore,

submitted that this petition may also be disposed of,

following the order passed in Special Civil

Application No.5913 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021.

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2- NHAI,

further submitted that as in the other cases if it is

found that the petitioners are entitled to Factor-"2"

being applied for determination of compensation and

other benefits, respondent No.2 - Authority shall

make deposit within four weeks of such determination.

C/SCA/18057/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/12/2021

7. Thus, following the decision of the

Coordinate Bench rendered in Special Civil Application

No.5913 of 2021 dated 23.04.2021, the present petition

is disposed of with the same directions and terms as

contained in the order dated 23.04.2021 passed in

Special Civil Application No.5913 of 2021.

8. However, it is clarified that if the

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

appraise the Arbitrator of the said issue, so that

there is no further multiplicity or complications in

the proceedings.

9. The present petition, therefore, stands

disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as

to costs. Consequently, pending application/s, if

any, stands disposed of.

(ARAVIND KUMAR, CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) GAURAV J THAKER