Kanta Bhansali vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7536 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8354/2020

1. Ramesh S/o Late Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o 148, Gogamand Ka Bass, Pa Gaon, Tehsil And District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

2. Pankaj S/o Shri Bheekam Chand, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Meghwalo Ka Bass, Village Pal, Tehsil And District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub Divisional Officer, Rohet, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15317/2018 Sucheta W/o Rajeev Khullar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 23, Shyam Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Engineer, (National Highway), Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub Divisional Officer, Rohet, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.

4. The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16760/2018 Kanta Bhansali W/o Virendra Bhansali, Aged About 48 Years, By

(2 of 5) [CW-8354/2020]

Caste Oswal Bhansali, 20, Jain Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Paota B Road, Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi

2. The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub Divisional Officer, Rohet, 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. SD Goswami Mr. Pukhraj Servi

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

21/09/2023

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue

involved in the writ petitions is squarely covered by the order

dated 19.11.2022 passed in SBCWP No. 6365/2022 and other

connected matters.

The prayers made in the writ petitions are reproduced

hereunder and the relevant part of the order is also reproduced:-

"a. The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of compensation under National Highways Act, 1956;

b. The respondents may kindly be directed to quash the award dated 17.9.2014 (Annexure/2) in so far as it declines award of solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;

c. The respondents may be directed to comply with the Guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;

(3 of 5) [CW-8354/2020]

d. The respondents may kindly be directed to issue supplementary award to this effect within a stipulated time;

e. The National Highway Authority of India must be directed to deposit the amount payable in terms of the supplementary award, in interest bearing fixed deposit accounts(s) in any nationalized bank which shall be disturbed to the petitioner;"

"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 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

(4 of 5) [CW-8354/2020]

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."

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the

petitioners that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an

appropriate writ, order or directions:-

A. The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of compensation under National Highways Act, 1956;

B. The respondents may kindly be directed to quash the award dated 17.9.2014 and 31.7.2014 (Annexure-2) and award dated 17.9.2014 (Annexure-2) (in SBCWP No. 15317/2018) (31.7.2014 (Annexure-2 in SBCWP No. 16760/2018)) in so far as it declines award of solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894;

C. The respondents may be directed to comply with the Guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; D. The respondents may kindly be directed to issue supplementary award to this effect within a stipulated time;

E. The National Highway Authority of India must be directed to deposit the amount payable in terms of the supplementary award, in interest bearing fixed deposit account(s) in any nationalized bank which shall be disbursed to the petitioner(s);

F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner(s) G. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners."

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

controversy involved in the writ petition does not apply to the case

in hand.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order

dated 09.11.2022 passed in SBCWP No.6365/2022 and other

(5 of 5) [CW-8354/2020]

connected matters. This Court finds that the issue involved in the

present writ petitions are having similar facts and prayers.

In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of in the

same terms.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J ns. 184-186 1/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)