Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamla Devi Bohra vs Union Of India ... on 16 October, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:35155] (1 of 3) [CW-5222/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5222/2023
1. Kamla Devi Bohra W/o Prasanchandbohra, Aged About 60
Years, By Caste Bohra, Resident Of Plot No. 16, Opp.
Preksha Hospital, Amrit Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur, (Raj.).
2. Manju Devi Ummaidrajbohra W/o Ummaidrajjohrilalbohra,
Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Bohra, Resident Of
Tirtham-5 B. No. 2, Swaminarayan Colony, Near
Rambaug, Near Pranshankar Hall, Maninagar, Ahmedabad
City, Gujarat.
3. Vanithanahar W/o Shreniknahar, Aged About 42 Years, By
Caste Oswal, Resident Of 45A-Ii, Main Road, Prashantt
Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka.
4. Sushilanahar W/o Sumerchandnahar, Aged About 72
Years, By Caste Oswal, Resident Of 45A-Ii, Main Road,
Prashantt Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman, National Highways Authority Of India, G-5
And 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.
3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub
Divisional Officer, Rohat, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.
4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Swami.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bachawat, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/10/2023
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:46:36 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:35155] (2 of 3) [CW-5222/2023]
1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the
controversy involved in this writ petition is similar to the order
passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sushila
Pathak Vs. Union of India & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
6365/2022 alongwith other connected matters on 09.11.2022.
The relevant operative portion of the order dated 09.11.2022
reads as under:-
"I have considered the submissions made at the
Bar.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem
Singh (supra) held as under:-
"41. There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor
General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded
the issue raised in these cases. This assumes
importance in view of the plea of Shri Divan that the
impugned judgments should be set aside on the
ground that when the arbitral awards did not provide
for solatium or interest, no Section 34 petition
having been filed by the landowners on this score,
the Division Bench judgments that are impugned
before us ought not to have allowed solatium and/or
interest. Ordinarily, we would have acceded to this
plea, but given the fact that the Government itself is
of the view that solatium and interest should be
granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and
2015, in the interest of justice we decline to
interfere with such orders, given our discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India. We therefore declare that the provisions of
the Land acquisition Act relating to solatium and
interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and
interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will
apply to acquisitions made under the National
Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of
Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to
be unconstitutional. Accordingly, Appeal @ SLP (C)
No. 9599/2019 is dismissed."
In view of the submissions made before this Court
and taking into consideration the fact that Section 3-J of
the National Highways Act, 1956 is held to be violative of
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:46:36 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:35155] (3 of 3) [CW-5222/2023]
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are
permitted to withdraw the present writ petitions with
liberty to approach the Arbitrator as per Section 3(G)(5)
of National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners shall
move an appropriate application along with an
application for condonation of delay before the Arbitrator
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of
the certified copy of this order, which shall be considered
by the Arbitrator strictly in accordance with law.
Needless to say that the Arbitrator after giving a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners shall
decide the application so preferred by them by a
speaking order strictly in accordance with law.
Since the matter pertains to the year 2014,
therefore, it is expected from the Arbitrator that he shall
conclude the arbitration proceedings at the earliest
preferably within a period of one year from the date of
filing the same.
Accordingly, the present writ petitions are
dismissed as withdrawn."
2. In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petition is
disposed of in the same terms. All pending applications also stand
disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
41-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
