AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sri Vipin Sanghi, CJ
Delay Condonation Application (IA No.01 of 2022)
Learned counsel for the respondents, do not fairly oppose the delay in preferring the present special appeal.
For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay condonation application is allowed, and the delay of ten days in preferring the special appeal is, hereby, condoned.
Special Appeal No. 283 of 2022
Though the appellant has still not removed the defects, we have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the appellant on merits. We, accordingly, dispose of the present special appeal.
The present special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.06.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1422 of 2022. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with a direction to the respondent no.1, i.e. the Competent Authority Land Acquisition/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haridwar, District Haridwar, to decide the application moved by the respondent no.1 herein dated 13.06.2022, under Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act of 2013’ for short), registered as Case No.164/2021-22, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of the judgment.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the garb of moving an application styled as one under Section 33 of the Act of 2013, the respondent no.1 is, in fact, seeking a review of the award dated 25.03.2022, rendered by the Competent Authority Land Acquisition under Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956, under which acquisition was undertaken by the appellant.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Union of India & another vs. Tarsem Singh & others, (2019) 9 SCC 304”, to conclude that an application under Section 33 of the Act of 2013 is maintainable in respect of acquisition undertaken under the National Highways Act, 1956, since the National Highways Act is enumerated in the fourth Schedule to the Act of 2013 at Entry No.7.
In the light of the aforesaid, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge requiring the Competent Authority Land Acquisition to examine the application moved by the respondent no.1 under Section 33 of the Act of 2013 does not call for interference. However, it goes without saying that the Competent Authority Land Acquisition shall, firstly, examine whether the application dated 13.06.2022 moved by the respondent no.1 herein squarely falls within the parameters of Section 33 of the Act of 2013 in the light of the objections raise by the appellant, and only if the Competent Authority Land Acquisition concludes that the application squarely falls within the parameters set out under Section 33 of the Act of 2013- by a reasoned order, it shall proceed to examine the application on its merits.
The special appeals stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.