Gujarat High Court
Late Bhailalbhai Shankarbhai ... vs The Competent Authority, ... on 9 June, 2022
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/SCA/10252/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10252 of 2022
==========================================================
LATE BHAILALBHAI SHANKARBHAI SOLANKIS LHS VASANTBHAI
BHAILALBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
INDIA AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN N MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MS ADITI S
RAOL(8128) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK G NANAVATI for NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s)
No.1, 2
MR DEVANG VYAS, ASG for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for
the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 09/06/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1. We have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Ms. Aditi S. Raol,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Maulik
Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.
1 and 2 (National Highway Authority of India),
Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor
General for respondent no.3 and Mr. Adityasinh
Jadeja, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondent no.4.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:
C/SCA/10252/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022
"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction declaring that the
impugned resolutions, Dated: 10/11/2016
and 11/9/2018 (to the extent it is made
prospective) issued by the Government of
Gujarat, Revenue Department Bearing No.
LAQ 22-2014/179/GH. are null and void;
(B) 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.2 to
amend/modify/revise the award dated
25.05.2017 bearing no.LAQ. Vadodara-
Mumbai Express Way/Sokhdakhurd
Compensation Case No.21/2013 and re-
compute the compensation qua the lands of
the petitioner by multiplying the market
value as determined under Section 26(1)
of the 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 25.05.2017 @ 9% for the
first year and 15% per annum for
subsequent years till date of realisation
within 6 weeks of the Judgement;
(C) 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;"
3. It is the contention of learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the
petitioner is an agriculturist and is holding
total agricultural land admeasuring 4281
C/SCA/10252/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022
Hector-Are-Sq. Mtrs., bearing survey no.199
within the ceiling limit prescribed in village
Sokhdakhurd, Taluka Padra, District: Vadodara
and is tilling the said land. The land is
situated within revenue and panchayat limits
of the Village Sokhdakhurd Gram Panchayat. The
land do not fall 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.
It is further contended that the competent
authority passed an award dated 28.06.2017
bearing No.LAQ/Vadodara-Mumbai Express
Way/Sokhdakhurd Compensation Case No.21/2013.
As per Section 26(1) of the Act, from survey
no.199 of the petitioner's land, 3546 sq.
mtrs. land was acquired and the market value
of the acquired land was arrived at INR
1,05,46,640/-. Though the acquired land is
situated in rural area, respondent no.2
applied factor 1 and not 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
C/SCA/10252/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022
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 Hon'ble 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. 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.
5. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 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, respondents no.1 and 2 shall make
deposit within one month of such
determination.
C/SCA/10252/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022
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. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
Maulik
