AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikram Nath, CJ
We have heard Shri Bhavyaraj Gohel, Advocate for Shri A.J.Yagnik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the State respondents and Ms.Manvi Damle, Advocate for Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - National Highway Authority of India.
At the outset, Shri Gohel has made pressing of this petition only for applicability of Factor-2 to be applied while finalizing calculating the award as
the per compensation the judgment and dated 12. 09.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a group of writ petitions led by Special Civil
Application No.8734 of 2019. He has further specifically submitted that the benefit extended in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment may be
extended and applied in the case of the present petitioners. In other matters, the earlier award needs to be revised and a fresh award needs to be
given in the light of the judgment dated 12. 09.2019 referred to above which has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court and now the State and
National Highway Authority of India are complying the same subject to fulfillment of the conditions for getting the benefit of Factor-2. However, it is
more or less admitted subject to verification, by the respondent - NHAI that the petitioner is and would be entitled to the benefit of Factor-
It goes without saying that the benefit would be extended so long as the petitioner is entitled and eligible to the same depending number upon of
competent the orders location have authority to of their been passed take a fresh land. Large directing the decision redetermining the compensation in
light of the judgment dated 12.09.2019 and we have also fixed eight weeks' time to the competent authority to make the award and further we have
granted 21 days time to the National Highway Authority of India to make necessary deposit so that the land owners may get the benefit at the earliest.
Shri Gohel has also sought liberty that the petitioner if determination of rate of land is by which the compensation is calculated is not satisfied he
may have the liberty to avail the remedy available under the law for seeking enhancement. We make it clear that we are not curtailing any right of the
petitioner available to him under law for claiming the highest compensation which he can get subject to availing the appropriate remedy in accordance
to law and establishing his rights for higher compensation.
It has been pointed out by Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader that the present petitioner has moved for re-determination of
compensation before the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is thus submitted by Ms.Pathak as also Ms.Damle
appearing for NHAI that before the Arbitrator, the petitioner 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 Gohel, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the petitioner would not insist for Factor-2 before the Arbitrator as he would be getting the benefit of Factor-2 under the present
orders.
In view of the above, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the competent authority / Land Acquisition Officer under the National Highways
Act, 1956 to give a fresh award in the above cases in the light of the judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.8734 of 2019
keeping in mind the directions contained in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 thereof within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified
copy of this order to the competent authority. We further direct that within 21 days from the date of award the National Highway Authority of India
shall deposit the amount with the competent authority for disbursement to the petitioner.