Gujarat High Court
Parmar Ramba Raisingh Urf ... vs Competent Authority on 21 January, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/1095/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1095 of 2022
==========================================================
PARMAR RAMBA RAISINGH URF RAMILABEN W/O SOLANKI
PUSHPATSINH
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY
==========================================================
Appearance:
GHANSHYAM H UPADHYAY(9606) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS SHIVANGI J GUPTA(10542) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR CHINTAN DAVE ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK NANAVATI for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR DEVANG VYAS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 21/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)
1. Mr. Maulik Nanavati accepts notice for respondent no. 2 - The
National Highway Authority of India). Registry to print the name of
Mr. Maulik Nanavati as counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.
Petitioner counsel undertakes to serve a copy of the Special Civil
Application during the course of the day. His submission and
undertaking placed on record.
2. We have heard Ms. Shivangi Gupta, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Mr. Maulik Nanavati,
learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (National Highway Authority of
India) and Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General for
C/SCA/1095/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
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 number 1 to amend/modify/revise the award dated
05.09.2017 bearing No. LAQ. Vadodara - Mumbai Express
Way/Sherkhi Compensation Case No. 13/2013 and re-compute
the compensation qua the lands of the petitioners by
multiplying the market value as determined 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 Section 30(1),
interest under Section 30(3) and be further pleased to direct
the respondents to pay the same, with interest from
05.09.2017 @ 9% for the first year and 15% per annum for
subsequent years till date of realisation; within 6 weeks of the
Judgment;
(B) 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;
(C) Any other and further reliefs may be deemed just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please
be granted."
4. It is the submission of Ms. Gupta, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioners that petitioners are an agriculturists and are
holding total agricultural land admeasuring 1-47-51 H.Are.Sq.Mtrs,
bearing Block No. 855 and Survey No. 482 within the ceiling limit
prescribed in village Sherkhi, Taluka : Vadodara Rural, District:
Vadodara. The said lands are under cultivation and they are totally
dependent upon it for their livelihood. The lands in question,
according to Ms. Gupta, learned advocate is not falling within the
C/SCA/1095/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
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 Ms. Gupta, 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 lands of the petitioners were 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 lands vested in respondent no. 3. 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 and
the market value of the acquired lands was arrived at INR
3,91,31,990/- and though the lands acquired are 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. National Highway Authority of India
rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5913 of 2021 dated
C/SCA/1095/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
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.
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
re-determination 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
C/SCA/1095/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/01/2022
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
