Gujarat High Court
Shardaben Wd/O Jashbhai ... vs Competent Officer And Special ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/8441/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8441 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8441 of 2022
==================================================
SHARDABEN WD/O JASHBHAI MANGALBHAI PARMAR
Versus
COMPETENT OFFICER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==================================================
Appearance:
MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK NANAVATI for the Respondent No.2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 04/05/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR)
1. Civil Application No.1 of 2022 is allowed subject to the
production of translated copy within two weeks from today.
2. Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 accept Notice and waive service of
Notice. Registry to print their names in the cause title as well as
in the order.
C/SCA/8441/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
3. We have heard Mr. Jinesh H. Kapadia, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr. Maulik
Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"9(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 / Samilyala
Compensation Case no.21/2013 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 S. 30(1), interest under S. 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, atering, making any
construction of any kind on the land of the petitioners;
C/SCA/8441/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
(C) Any other and further releases may be deemed just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
please be granted"
5. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the petitioners are the owners and occupants of
agricultural land bearing Block No.304 (Old S. No.393),
admeasuring H.01-02-18, situated at Mouje Village: Samiyala,
Taluka: Vadodara (Rural), District: Vadodara which was notified
for acquisition by respondent No.2- NHAI for the public purpose
namely for construction of Vadodara - Mumbai Express Way and
they were cultivating the said land and were dependent upon
the same for their livelihood. It is further contended that said
land is situated in a rural area falling within the limits of Gram
Panchayat of Samiyala and it does not fall under limits of any
transitional area Smaller Urban Area or Larger Urban Area as
defined under Article 243Q (2) and if not part of any area falling
within the limits of any Urban Local Body. Hence, they have
prayed for suitable compensation being awarded to them.
6. 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
C/SCA/8441/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
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.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 NHAI further
submitted that as in the other cases if it is found that the
petitioners are entitled to Factor-"2" being applied for
determination of compensation and other benefits, respondent
No.2 Authority shall make deposit within four weeks of such
C/SCA/8441/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
determination.
8. 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.
9. 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 issue, so that there is no further
multiplicity or complications in the proceedings.
10. The present petition, therefore, stands disposed of
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
Bharat
