Point of Law: Power to acquire land - Determination of compensation - Section 3G(5) entitles a person interested in land and to whom determination of compensation by Competent Authority is not acceptable, to make an application therefor and provides for determination of compensation by an Arbitrator to be appointed by Central Government.

ORDER :

[Via Video Conferencing]

1. The seven petitioners have filed this petition, (i) seeking declaration that the act of the respondent no. 2 Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) in not considering the claims of the petitioners and rejecting the same as time barred, is arbitrary and illegal; (ii) impugning the Award dated 5th November, 2020 whereby the claims and additional submissions of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground of being time barred; and, (iii) seeking mandamus to the respondent no.2 Competent Authority, (Land Acquisition), to pass a fresh order of determination of the amount with respect to the land of the petitioners, after considering the claims and additional submissions of the petitioners.

2. Though the petition came up first before this Court on 23rd March, 2021 and the counsels for the respondent no.2 Competent Authority, (Land Acquisition) and respondent no.3 National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) have been appearing on advance notice, but has been adjourned on as many as four occasions.

3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsels for the respondents appearing on advance notice.

4. The land of the petitioners was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The grievance of the petitioners is, that the Competent Authority within the meaning of Section 3(a) and Section 3G(4) of the said Act, while determining the compensation payable to the petitioners, has not considered the claims of the petitioners and rather, wrongly dismissed the same as time barred. The petitioners thus seek setting aside of the determination carried out by the Competent Authority under Section 3G(4) of the National Highways Act and remand of the matter back to the said Competent Authority for fresh determination, after taking into consideration the claims filed by the petitioners and not considered in the earlier determination.

5. Section 3G(4) requires persons interested in the land being acquired to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner before the Competent Authority, “at the time and place”, to state the nature of their respective interests in the land.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filed their claims, after the date prescribed in the notice inviting the same. It is however the contention of the counsel for the petitioners, that since the claims had been presented prior to consideration by the Competent Authority, the Competent Authority ought to have determined the compensation after dealing with the said claims and giving reasons for not accepting the same. It is argued that such determination by Competent Authority without considering the claims of the petitioners and rejecting the same as time barred, has resulted in the determination of the compensation at a very low value. It is contended that had the claims of the petitioners backed by documents been considered, the determination would have been much higher.

7. Section 3G(5) entitles a person interested in the land and to whom the determination of compensation by the Competent Authority is not acceptable, to make an application therefor and provides for determination of the compensation by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

8. We have thus enquired from the counsel for the petitioners, whether not it is apposite in the facts and circumstances of the case to, rather than entertaining this petition and after completion of pleadings, adjudicating whether the matter of determination of compensation is required to be remanded back to the Competent Authority or not, and all of which will take time, to expedite the arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act.

9. The counsel for the petitioners initially opposed our aforesaid suggestion and which has resulted in our having to hear the counsels for the respondents. The counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition vehemently, by referring to National Highways Authority of India Vs. Sayedabad Tea Company Limited, (20