AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] Heard Mr. G. K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4.
[2] By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this Court for directing the respondents to release the access land beyond 20 meters required for widening of National Highway 44, to furnish a copy of the award and to direct the competent authority refer the matter to the Arbitrator for deciding the just and adequate compensation.
[3] There is no dispute that from the petitioner by virtue of the notice dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) some land has been acquired out of the jot land of the petitioner for purpose of widening, maintenance and management of National Highway No. 44 for a stretch from 38.950 to 68.645 km from Agartala to Subroom section under the Gomati District. It further appears that from the petitioner, 0.04 acre was notified for acquisition under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956.
[4] The petitioner has stated that 0.04 acre of land has been acquired from the land of the petitioner pertaining to Plots No. 5941/7007 and 5942/7009 under Khatian No. 2192 measuring 49 and 113 square meters respectively. From Khatian No. 2192 of Mouja Udaipur town, it appears that the Plot No. 5941/7007 is constituted of a land area measuring 0.01 acre and Plot No. 5942/7009 is constituted of 0.028 acre. Thus, the total land as acquired is 0.04 acre[the records will prevail].
[5] There is no dispute that the competent authority has passed the award. According to the petitioner, the respondents do not require the entire land for the said purpose. The petitioner has applied to the competent authority [the District Magistrate and Collector, Gomati District] for releasing the said land measuring 4 square meter by a representation dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
[6] Mr. G. K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have admitted that only 20 sq. meter is required for widening of the road. In this regard he has referred to a communication dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Mr. Nama, learned counsel has further submitted that on 21.12.2015, the petitioner made a demand to refer the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of Section 3G(5) for determining the just and adequate compensation. In this demand dated 21.12.2015, the petitioner has asserted as under:
"In view of the above situation you are requested to make a fresh measurement of the said building and other constructions existing on the acquired land and send the matter to the Arbitrator for assessment and making appropriate award for the loss suffered by the notice givers. If appropriate measurement of the building and other constructions is not taken prior to demolish the same you will be responsible to compensate the claim to be made by the notice givers.
The proposed action would be taken by me on behalf of my client without any loss of time and not beyond one month."
[7] The said demand was made through the notice issued by an advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this regard has asserted that there is no information to the petitioner whether such reference has been made to the Arbitrator or not. However, he has fairly admitted that as per the demand, reassessment of the building and the land has been made by the competent authority and the said report is available at Annexure-R/1 to the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1.
[8] Finally, Mr. Nama, learned counsel has referred to a part of the averment made by the respondent No. 1 under Para-5.1 of their reply filed on 07.06.2016 where the following has been averred:
"As per alignment of proposed widening of road at this location, it was observed that the land including building measuring 7 mtr. x 6 mtr. in the shape of a triangle (total area measuring 21 sq.mtr.) was beyond the construction zone. The structure falling within this area cannot be sustained as the same would become unstable, unsafe and unsuitable for dwelling or use. If the entire land occupied by the structure was not acquired there would be tendency to keep the balance part of seriously damaged structure beyond 20 mtr. row tentamounting to sever accident due to structural failure. Considering the above reasons, complete khashra No. 7009 (part) has been acquired."
[9] Mr. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from this averment it is clear that the land measuring 21 sq.mtr. is not really required for purpose of widening of the road and the respondent No. 1 may release that land from acquisition.
[10] Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1 has clearly submitted that the acquisition of land has been proposed after a technical survey and the averment made under Para-5.1 as referred by Mr. G. K. Nama, learned counsel is based on the technical re-survey made by the N.H. authority. It would appear from the alignment plan prepared by the consultant M/s URS Private Limited that the said land has been made part of that plan.
[11] Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has further submitted that the petitioner has accepted the award but they have expressed the reservation about the assessment of the compensation after the money is paid and the possession has been taken. The acquisition has become conclusive and the petitioner cannot claim release any part of the acquired land.
[12] Mr. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1 has further submitted that objection under subsection (1) of Section 3C was filed to the competent authority but that objection was rejected by the competent authority. Thereafter, the Central Government has published the declaration under Section 3D (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Now, the land is vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.
[13] Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 has submitted that the competent authority after due assessment has passed the award on 16.11.2015 by awarding a compensation to the extent of Rs. 52,86,423/-. The respondent No. 1 has supplemented by stating that at the time of receiving the compensation, the petitioner did not raise any objection, now the objections are being raised after receiving the compensation.
[14] It appears from the communication dated 17.09.2015 Annexure-R/7 to the reply filed by the respondent No. 1, that the Arbitrator in terms of Section-3G(5) has been appointed by the Central Government in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The District Magistrate and Collector, West Tripura District, Sipahijala District, Gomati District and South Tripura District are appointed as the Arbitrator for their respective jurisdiction for resolution of the land acquisition related dispute for Agartala-Subroom section of N.H. No. 44 in the State of Tripura.
[15] The respondents have however, absolutely silent whether the case of the petitioner has been referred to the Arbitrator or not. Having appreciated the submission and the averments made in the writ petition and the reply filed by the respondent No. 1, this Court is of the view that, this Court cannot extend its jurisdiction to determine what the requirement of land is for purpose of implementation of a certain project e.g. the widening of N.H. No. 44 in this case. This Court has to go by the technical assessment as prepared for the project and as such, if the respondent No. 1 on the basis of the technical assessment as made, acquired the land as stated, this Court cannot say that a part of the land shall be released when they have given a reason why they have held back the additional part which has fallen beyond 20 meter from the construction area.
[16] So far the reference to the Arbitrator is concerned, the respondent No. 4 is directed to refer the case of the petitioner to the Arbitrator in terms of the communication dated 17.05.2015, Annexure- R/7 to the reply filed by the respondent No. 1, within a month from the day when the said respondent shall receive a copy of this order. Before such reference, the assessment-sheet as prepared by the competent authority, the respondent No. 4 shall be provided to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be entitled to utilize that assessment- sheet as well as the reassessment-sheet Annexure-R/1 to the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, before the Arbitrator along with other records for claiming the enhanced rate.
With these observations and direction, this writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.