AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Petitioners had initially sought the following prayers:
"1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners forthwith and direct them to redetermine the compensation payable at the current market rates with interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of preliminary notification including 30% as solatium;
Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to constitute a Grievance Redressal Cell by including a sitting or retired District Judge and an administrative member under the Chairmanship of a retired Judge of the High Court which will oversee whether the R and R Policy will be effectively and accurately implemented and whether the lands owners are suitable rehabilitated, compensated as per present market value, provide appropriate grant for resettling etc. by formulating Scheme and shall be judiciously and properly distributed in the light of the grievance raised by the displaced persons.
Grant such other relief as stated in Annexure B representation dated 25-5-2012.
Issue such other Writ or Order or direction as this Hobble Court might deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the writ petition."
By order dated 03.01.2014, prayer No. 2 was deleted. Petitioners'' counsel has filed I.A.I/2014 seeking permission to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to file a fresh petition for re-determination of compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Such an application for withdrawal of writ petitions with liberty would not arise having regard to prayer No. 1.
In Prayer No. 1 petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to consider their representation to redetermine compensation payable at the current market rates with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of preliminary notification including 30% as solatium.
Respondent No. 3 has filed statement of objections to the writ petitions inter alia contending that the writ petitions are not maintainable.
I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.
As the prayer sought by petitioners with regard to re-determination of compensation at the current market rates is contrary to the first proviso to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''The Act'', for the sake of brevity), no direction can be issued to respondents to consider the representation of petitioners to re-determine the compensation in terms of the current market rates. The relevant portion of Section 23 of the Act reads as under:
"23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. -- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration--
first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1);" Therefore, the date to be reckoned for the purpose of determination of compensation is the date of the preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In the instant case, learned counsel for the respondent - MUDA states that compensation was determined on 01.04.1975. In that view of the matter also, the question of re-determination of the compensation as per the current market rate does not arise. Therefore, no direction can be given to the respondents to consider the representation of petitioners.
In the result, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. In view of dismissal of writ petitions, I.A.I/2014 for withdrawal of writ petitions would not arise for consideration and it also stands dismissed.