Gujarat High Court
Gohil Pratapsinh Chandrasinh vs Competent Authority, Nhai And ... on 9 February, 2022
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/SCA/2895/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2895 of 2022
==========================================================
GOHIL PRATAPSINH CHANDRASINH
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NHAI AND SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ISHAN MIHIR PATEL(6508) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. DM DEVNANI, AGP, ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. DEVANG VYAS, ASG for the respondent No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 09/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND
KUMAR)
1. We have heard Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Respondent No.1, Mr. Maulik
Nanavati, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Mr.
Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General for
Respondent No.3.
2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) direct the respondents to amend/modify/revise the
award dated 05.09.2017 bearing no. LAQ.Vadodara-Mumbai
Expressway / Sherkhi Compensation Case No. 13/2013 and
re-compute the compensation qua abovementioned lands of
the petitioner by multiplying the market-value as determined
C/SCA/2895/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
under section 26(1) of the LARR, 2013 Act with a Factor of 2
(Two) and applying all other statutory benefits as provided
under the LARR Act, 2013 including solatium under S. 30(1),
interest under S. 30(3) ;
(B) direct the respondents to follow and abide by the
judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Court in SLP
(Civil) Diary No. 18777 of 2020 as also the judgment and
order passed by this Hon'ble Court in SCA No. 8734 of 2019
and publish the corrected award under section 3-G(1) of the
National Highways Act, 1956 qua the petitioner within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of order that may be passed
in this petition ;
(C) During the pendency of this petition, grant reliefs in
terms of paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b) of this petition;
(D) pass any further writ, order of direction as may be
deemed necessary in the interest of Justice."
3. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that agricultural land admeasuring 00.05.31 Hector
Are Aq. Mtrs. bearing Block Survey No. 492(245/2) of Mouje
Sherkhi, Tal. District Vadodara belonged to one Chandrasinh
Gohil, who was the late father of the petitioner and his siblings
viz. Gohil Chanchalben Chandrasinh, Gohil Rangeetsinh
Chandrasinh, Gohil Jitendrasinh Chandrasinh, Gohil Sitaben
Chandra and Gohil Shakuntalaben Chandrasinh. Out of the
abovenamed persons, Gohil Chanchalben Chandrasinh, Gohil
Rangeetsinh Chandrasinh, Gohil Jitendrasinh Chandrasinh,
Gohil Sitaben Chandra and Gohil Shakuntalaben Chandrasinh
executed a deed dated 18.01.2020 whereby their interests of
receiving compensation in case of acquisition of subject land
was transferred to the present petitioner. It is contended that
on 03.03.2014, a notification was published under section 3A
of the National Highways Act, 1956 wherein it was mentioned
that certain lands including the land of petitioner, is planned to
be acquired under the Act. Such acquisition is claimed to be
C/SCA/2895/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
for construction of a 324.5 kms - 380 kms long highway
(being the Vadodara - Mumbai Expressway). The petitioner's
abovementioned land is subjected to acquisition for the said
project. 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/Sherkhi
Compensation Case No. 13/2013. It is contended that the
authority applied factor 1 and not factor 2. Hence, the present
petition. The main grievance raised in the petition is that the
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.
C/SCA/2895/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2022
5. 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.
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 redetermination 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)
AMAR SINGH
