Khemraj Santokchand Mundhra vs The Competent Authority
2022 Latest Caselaw 4038 Guj

      C/SCA/6764/2022                         ORDER DATED: 07/04/2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6764 of 2022

=============================================
                KHEMRAJ SANTOKCHAND MUNDHRA
                              Versus
                    THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
=============================================
Appearance:
KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS DIVYANGANA JHALA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK NANAVATI for NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
MR KSHITIJ AMIN for the Respondent (s) No. 3
=============================================

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

Date : 07/04/2022

ORAL ORDER

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

1. Ms. Divyangana Jhala, learned Assistant Government

Pleader accepts notice for respondent no. 1, Mr. Maulik

Nanavati accepts notice for respondent no. 2 - The National

Highway Authority of India) and Mr Kshitij Amin accepts notice

for respondent no. 3. Registry to print their names as counsels

appearing for respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Maulik Nanavati,

learned counsel acknowledge the receipt of the copies of

Special Civil Application. Petitioner counsel undertakes to serve

requisite number of copies to the respective counsels. His

C/SCA/6764/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2022

submission and undertaking is placed on record.

2. We have heard Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya, learned advocate

appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Divyangana Jhala, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Maulik

Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (National

Highway Authority of India), and Mr. Kshitij Amin, learned

Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioner has prayed 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 and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to amend/modify/revise the award dated 28.06.2017 bearing no. L.A.Q. Vadodara - Mumbai Expressway/Mahapura Compensation Case No. 16 of 2013 and re-compute the compensation qua the lands of the petitioner by multiplying the market value as determined under Section 26(1) of the of the LAAR Act, 2013 with a factor of "2" (two) and applying all other statutory benefits as provided under the LAAR Act, 2013 including solatium under Sec. 30(1), interest under Section 30(3) and be further pleased to direct the respondents to pay the same, with interest from 28.06.2017 @ 9% for the first year and 15% per annum for subsequent years till date of realization within six weeks of the judgment;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents from using altering, making any construction

C/SCA/6764/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2022

of any kind on the land of the petitioner;

(C) Grant such other and further relief(s) in the facts and circumstances of the present petition as deemed fit in the interest of justice."

4. It is the submission of Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya, learned

advocate appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is an

agriculturist and holding agricultural land admeasuring 00-66-

77 Ha. Are Sq. Mtr., bearing Survey No. 82 within the ceiling

limit prescribed in Village Mahapura, Taluka. Vadodara (Rural),

District Vadodara. The said land is under cultivation and the

petitioner is totally dependent upon it for his livelihood. The

land in question according to learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya is

not falling within the limits of any 'transitional area, smaller

urban area or larger urban area' as defined and specified under

Article 243Q (2) and is not part of any area falling within the

limits of any Urban Local body or Municipality or Municipal

Corporation and as such, the land in not covered under any

urban area. According to learned advocate Mr. Ghavariya, the

major economic activity is agriculture and there are no

significant non-agriculture activities in the village or

surrounding area and the village limits of Vadodara Urban

Development Authority, however, no T.P. Scheme is proposed in

C/SCA/6764/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2022

the area and the land is still in agriculture zone. It is contended

that by virtue of Notification dated 03.03.2014, issued by the

Government of India in exercise of power under Section 3A of

the National Highways Act, 1956 the land of the petitioner was

undertaken for acquisition for the purpose of construction of

Vadodara-Mumbai Express way and by virtue of further

Notification under Section 3D, published on 05.03.2015, the

land vested in respondent no. 3. It is contended that for the

purpose of compensation, the competent authority passed an

award on 28.06.2017 bearing No. LAQ/Vadodara-Mumbai

Express Way/Mahapura Compensation Case No. 16/2013 and

the market value of the acquired land was arrived and though

the acquired land is situated in rural area, the authority i.e.

respondent No.2 applied factor 1 and not factor 2. Hence, the

present petition. The main grievance raised in the petition is

that erroneously respondent no. 2 authority applied factor 1

instead of factor 2.

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.

C/SCA/6764/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2022

National Highway Authority of India rendered in Special Civil

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. No other submissions were made.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - NHAI, further

submitted that as in the other cases if it is found that the

petitioner is entitled to Factor-"2" being applied for

determination of compensation and other benefits, respondent

No.2 - Authority shall make deposit within 21 days of such

determination.

C/SCA/6764/2022 ORDER DATED: 07/04/2022

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 petitioner has moved for

re-determination of compensation before the Arbitrator under

Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the

petitioner 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.

(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) phalguni