Gujarat High Court
Manjulaben Champaklal Thakkar vs Vimalkumar K Joshi, I/C Competent ... on 18 April, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/MCA/129/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 129 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9514 of 2021
==================================================
MANJULABEN CHAMPAKLAL THAKKAR
Versus
VIMALKUMAR K JOSHI, I/C COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER & 1 other(s)
==================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.K.M.ANTANI, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR.MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the
Opponent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND
KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 18/04/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)
[1] This contempt proceedings have been initiated for alleged
willful disobedience of the order dated 13.07.2021 passed in
Special Civil Application No.9514 of 2021, which is to the
following effect:
"4. In view of the above, we dispose of all these eight
petitions with a direction to the competent authority / Land
Acquisition Officer under the National Highways Act, 1956
to give a fresh award in all the above cases in the light of
the judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed in Special Civil
Application No.8734 of 2019 keeping in mind the directions
C/MCA/129/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2022
contained in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 thereof within a
period certified of eight copy petitioners of before weeks
from the this order is the competent date of the filed by
the authority. We further direct that within 21 days from
the date of award the National Highway Authority of India
shall deposit the amount with the competent authority for
disbursement to the petitioners."
[2] In the light of the aforesaid order, it would be apt and
appropriate to take note of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed in
Special Civil Application No. 8734 of 2019 and it reads:
"21. Both the resolutions i.e. resolutions dated
10.11.2016 and 11.09.2018 are set aside. Petitions are
allowed. As far as Special Civil Application Nos.8734 of
2019 and cognate matters (except Special Civil Application
No. 11238 of 2019) are allowed with a direction to the
respondents to modify the awards and also recompute the
compensation qua the lands of the petitioner by
multiplying the market value as determined under Section
26(1) of the Act of 2013 with Factor 2 as per Section 26(2)
and applying all other statutory benefits including solatium
under Section 30(1), interest under Section 30(3) of the Act
of 2013 and determine and pay such compensation with
interest as prayed for.
In case of petitioner of Special Civil Application
No.11238 of 2019, we hold that in view of the fact that the
resolution dated 11.09.2018 is quashed and set aside
insofar as it is prospective, while computing compensation
for the land of the petitioner, the Factor 2.00 shall be
C/MCA/129/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2022
applicable to the land of the petitioner."
[3] A plain reading of the above orders would indicate that the
respondent authorities were required to re-compute the
compensation by adopting the multiplier with Factor 2 and
applying all other statutory benefits including solatium under
Section 30(1) and interest under Section 30(3) of 2013 Act by
determining the same and paying such compensation with
interest as prayed for.
[4] It is not in dispute that the award has been passed re-
computing the same by award dated 20.01.2022. For making
payment in favour of the complainants intimation was forwarded
to the applicant calling upon the complainant to place on record
the evidence in support of their claim to the title, to the property
in question and the same is said to have been submitted
subsequently on 11.02.2022.
[5] In the light of the direction passed, referred to
hereinabove, the orders stand complied and as such for
determination of payment of compensation if evidence has been
called for, that cannot be the subject matter of scrutiny by this
C/MCA/129/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2022
Court in contempt jurisdiction. Hence, we close the contempt
proceedings and reserve the liberty to the petitioner complainant
to take such steps as is permissible under law in the event of the
amount not being paid.
(ARAVIND KUMAR, C.J.)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
