AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikram Nath, CJ
We have heard Shri Nirad Buch, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate for respondent NHAI and Ms. Shruti
Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking benefit of judgment and order dated 12.09.2019
passed by Division Bench of this Court in a group of writ petitions, the leading case being Special Civil Application No.8734 of 2019 and in particular
the benefits extended vide paragraph 21 of the said judgment. According to learned Counsel, the case of the petitioners is identical to the group of
cases decided vide judgment dated 12. 09.2019. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.09.2019 has since been
affirmed by the Supreme Court as the SLP (Civil) Dairy No.18777 of 2020 filed by the State was dismissed. The affidavit in reply on behalf of the
State respondents does not dispute the fact that the petitioners' land is also falling within rural area and they would be entitled to the benefit of Factor2,
which had been extended by the aforesaid judgment dated 12.09.2019.
3 Ms. Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, submitted that apparently the State can have no objection to the relief claimed by the
petitioners, as granted vide paragraph 21 of the judgment dated 12.09.2019. However, as the acquisition was under the National Highways Act, 1956
(for short, `1956 Act'), the compensation and other ancillary benefits would be admissible as per the 1956 Act and the provisions of The Right To Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would only be admissible to the extent permitted
under the 1956 Act. As such, this aspect may be clarified that the competent authority under the  1956 Act may redetermine the compensation and
other benefits as per the judgment dated 12.09.2019, para 21 thereof in particular, keeping in mind the benefits admissible under the 1956 Act.
4 Shri Buch has no objection to this slight modification, which apparently is correct also.
5 It has been pointed out by learned Asst. Government Pleader that if the present 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 apprise the Arbitrator of the said issue so that there is no further multiplicity or complication in the proceedings. Shri
Mehta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners would not insist for Factor-2 before the Arbitrator as they would be
getting the benefit of Factor-2 under the present orders.
6 We accordingly dispose off this petition directing that the competent authority would issue a fresh or revised award, as may be considered extending
the benefits given by para 21 of the judgment dated 12.09.2019 and as clarified above to be determined under the 1956 Act.