Bombay High Court dismissed the plea from NHAI after pointing out the right of the respondent to get compensation for the acquired land and also remarked on ‘gross delay’ of the NHAI stating that “It is pertinent to note that the above order records that sufficient opportunities were given to the Petitioner i.e. NHAI”
The writ petition was filed by the NHAI against the compensation fixed by Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Nashik i.e. the Competent Authority as the Arbitrator in an order dated 5 January 2017 against the land acquisition of the respondent no.1 and 2. The petitioner also challenged the order of the district court which rejected NHAI’s plea on the ground of delay in filing the application.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that they were ready to deposit the reduced amount of the compensation @Rs.2200 per square meter within one month and sought relief against the civil court’s order under which NHAI’s accounts were to be seized by the court if they failed to deposit the compensation.
The respondent’s counsel strongly contended against any relief to the petitioner since the petitioner unreasonably not only delayed deposit of the respondent’s compensation against the acquired land but also for 13 years denied the respondents right to their property. The respondent’s counsel thus sought legitimate payment of compensation and no relief to the petitioner.
The Justice MN Jadhav upon deliberate consideration of the facts and submissions upheld the arbitrator’s awards refusing any relief to the petitioner on the grounds of rightful claim of the respondents and callous delay of the petitioner. The court remarked upon the liability of compensation “acquisition of land for public purpose is undertaken under the power of eminent domain of the government against the wishes of the owners of the land which gets acquired. When such a power is exercised, it is coupled with a bounden reciprocal duty and obligation on the part of the government body to ensure that the owners whose land gets acquired are paid compensation / awarded amount as declared by the statutory award.” The court held that the owners of the land were entitled to legitimate compensation as passed by the competent authority and called out the petitioner for ‘gross delay’ which deprived the respondents their rightful claim and stated that ground of delay was solely good enough to decline the petition. The court thus upheld the compensation and ordered the petitioner to deposit the amount in the executioner court after calculating the compensation with added statutory interests and compensation amounts after which the plea was dismissed and disposed off.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
