Gujarat High Court
Jadav Bhagwanbhai Fathesinh vs Competent Authority on 3 February, 2022
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/SCA/2099/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2099 of 2022
==========================================================
JADAV BHAGWANBHAI FATHESINH
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KM SHETH(838) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK NANAVATI for NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 03/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)
1. We have heard Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned advocate for the
petitioners, Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondent No. 1, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 (National Highway Authority of India).
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this
Special Civil Application.
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or
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
05/09/2017 bearing No. LAQ. Vadodara Mumbai Express Way/
C/SCA/2099/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022
Rayka Compensation Case No.08/2013 and re-compute the
compensation qua the land of the petitioner by multiplying the
market value as determined under section 26(1) of the Act,
2013 with a factor of 2 (two) and applying all other benefits as
provided under the Act, 2013 including solatium under section
30 (1), interest the under under section 30(3) of the Act, 2013
and be further pleased to direct respondents to pay the same,
with interest from 05/09/2017 at the rate of 9% for the first
year and 15% per annum for subsequent years till date of
realization within 6 weeks of the judgment.
(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass such other and
further order/s as deemed fit, just and proper by this Hon'ble
Court."
3. It is the submission of Mr.Sheth, learned advocate for the
petitioner that petitioner and his family are owner and occupier of
land, bearing Survey/Block No. 6, admeasuring 2162 sq.mtrs.,
situated at Village Rayka, Taluka:Vadodara (Rural), District:
Vadodara. The said land is under cultivation and they are totally
dependent upon it for their livelihood. The land in question,
according to Mr.Sheth, learned advocate 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 is not
covered under any urban area. According to Mr.Sheth, learned
advocate, the major economic activity is agriculture and there are no
significant non agricultural activities in the village or surrounding
area and the village limits of Vadodara Urban Development Area
Authority, however, No. T.P. Scheme is proposed in the area and the
lands are still in agriculture zone. It is contended that by virtue of
Notification dated 03.03.2014, issued by 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
C/SCA/2099/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022
the purpose of construction of Vadodara - Mumbai Express way and
by virtue of further Notification under Section 3D, published on
05.03.2015, the lands vested in respondent. It is contended that for
the purpose of compensation, the competent authority passed an
award dated 05.09.2017 bearing No. LAQ./Vadodara - Mumbai
Express Way/ Dodka Compensation Case No.8/2013 and the market
value of the acquired lands was arrived at and though the land
acquired 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.
4. 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 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.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - NHAI, further
C/SCA/2099/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2022
submitted that as in the other cases if it is found that the petitioner
are 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The present petition, therefore, stands disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
