The main legal point established is that the awards under the Act may be modified and compensation recomputed by applying Factor-2 and paying statutory benefits without amounting to reviewing or modifying the award.

ORDER :

(Biren Vaishnav, J.)

1. In all these petitions, RULE is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing.

2. For the averments made in the application, the Civil Application for joining party in Special Civil Application No.26651 of 2022 is hereby allowed.

3. The common issue involved in all these petitions is as to whether the awards passed in the respective petitions need to be modified/amended/revised and the compensation be recomputed and recalculated qua the lands of the petitioners by multiplying the market value as determined under Section 26(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’ for short) with Factor-2 as per Section 26(2) and applying all other statutory benefits including solatium under Section 30(1), interest under Section 30(3) of the Act and to determine and pay such compensation with interest as per the award ratio laid down by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8734 of 2019 and other cognate matters decided on 12.09.2019.

4. Since the issues involved in all these petitions are common and are already decided by this Court in the case of Dhiraj A. Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in 2020 (1) GLR 752, facts in each petitions are not extensively discussed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective petitioners and Mr.Maulik Nanavati learned advocate appearing for the National Highways Authority of India and learned AGPs appearing for the State.

6. It is the case of the petitioners in all these petitions that their lands were acquired under the provisions of the Act of 2013 and awards were passed in the respective petitions awarding compensation under the Act. It is undisputed even as submitted by the learned AGPs appearing in the respective petitions that the lands which are acquired and the awards which have been passed in all these petitions, are within the respective ‘rural areas’ and therefore eligible to a multiplying Factor-2.

7. Multiple orders have been passed by this Court relying on the decision in the case of Dhiraj A. Patel (supra) directing the respondents to give a fresh award in all cases keeping in mind the directions contained in paras 19, 20 and 21 of this judgement in the aforesaid case of Dhiraj A. Patel (supra).

8. Mr.Maulik Nanavati learned advocate appearing for the National Highway Authority of India vehemently opposed that similar orders cannot be passed in petitions where either the schedule of the award has not been annexed or in case where all the land owners/beneficiaries of the award have filed such petition. He would submit that where only some of the beneficiaries of the award have approached this Court, directions cannot be issued in light of the decision in case of Dhiraj A. Patel (supra) as, the competent authority/the National Highway Authority will have to redetermine the compensation and review the award though it has no such power under Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956. He would submit that once an award has been passed by the competent authority, the officer would become functus-officio and therefore a direction to recompute the compensation would necessarily amount to reviewing the award which the Court cannot direct. In support of his submissions, Mr.Nanavati would rely on a decision in case of Jyoti Warehousing – through its partner v. State of Gujarat and Ors. rendered in Special Civil Application No.6034 of 2015 and allied matters decided by a Division Bench of this Court by an oral judgement dated 24-31.01.2018.

9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is indeed surprising that despite the issue being concluded inasmuch as, the decision in the case of Dhiraj A. Patel (supra) has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, the counsel for the National Highway Aut