AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy, CJ
CMPs (M) No.440 to 443, 445 & 455 of 2020
For the reasons stated in these applications, the same are allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. Review petitions be registered. Applications stand disposed of.
The land which belongs to the review petitioner in Review Petition No.2 of 2020 was utilized by the respondents for construction/widening of the road from Thopan to Akpa on NH-5. The compensation has been fixed for utilization of the land of the petitioner. Since the petitioner submitted that it had made a reference application under Section 95 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, "the Act"), the writ petition was filed with a prayer to issue direction to the respondents to pay compensation as per award Annexure P-2.
It was the case of the respondents that the award has been challenged before the Competent Court of law. It is further case of the respondents that being the Requiring Body, they are the beneficiaries and have also filed reference application before the Competent Authority. Considering the claim of the respective parties, the writ petition was disposed of on 24.12.2019 with direction to the respondents to pay the amount of compensation immediately after the disposal of the case filed by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation and respondent No.5 challenging the award.
The review petition (Review Petition No.2 of 2020) has been filed by the petitioner to recall the order/directions issued by this court in the writ petition. The ground urged by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that proviso to Section 95 of the Act does not permit or entitle the beneficiaries to make any application. For better understanding of the proviso, the same is extracted hereinafter:
"Provided that no such local authority or Requiring Body shall be entitled to demand a reference to the Authority concerned under section 64."
For the purpose of Requiring Body, learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 3(zb) of the Act, which defines the Requiring Body and clarifies that respondent No.5 comes within the definition of the same. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the proviso does not entitle respondent No.5 to file reference application. Under these circumstances, the directions issued by this Court on 24.12.2019 to release the award amount after the disposal of the reference application filed by respondent No.5 is contrary to the proviso to Section 95 of the Act. He further submits that filing of reference application by respondent No.5 is also contrary to Section 41 of the Act, as in case the land belongs to SC/ST is utilized, then it mandates that the respondent/Requiring Body shall deposit the award amount immediately. In case there is a delay in payment, then the interest shall be paid as per Section 80 of the Act.
Be that as it may, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proviso itself does not permit the Requiring Body to file reference application, therefore, the direction issued to that extent is required to be recalled.
Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India does not dispute the filing of reference application for the reason that in the other batch of petitions, reference applications under Section 95 have also been filed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. On the submissions made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that Requiring Body had also filed reference applications under Section 95 of the Act and after having considered the respective cases, we directed the respondents to release the compensation amount immediately after the disposal of the reference applications filed by the beneficiaries as well as the Requiring Body, but proviso to Section 95 of the Act dis-entitles the Requiring Body to file such reference Applications.
Under these circumstances, we modify the directions issued in para-7 of order dated 24.12.2019 to the extent it stipulates that award amount be released after the disposal of the cases filed by respondent No.5. Ordered accordingly.
In case the petitioner belongs to SC/ST category, then as per section 41 of the Act, there shall be a direction to the respondents to deposit the award amount before the competent Authority immediately. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India seeks and is granted six weeks time to deposit the award amount. His submission is taken on record.
In the light of the observations made hereinabove, the review petitions No.27 & 58 to 63 of 2020 filed by respondent-Union of India does not arise for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.