Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Akil Kureshi, Madan Gopal Vyas, JJ.
Susila Kankariya W/o Mahaveer Kankariya – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, The Revenue Department (Group-6) & Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No., 5916, 12253, 12282, 12292, 5812, 5798, 6361 of 2021, 11450, 14174, 16311, 16312, 16313, 16581 of 2018, 7639, 7640, 7713, 7803, 9808, 9934, 9957, 10642, 11206, 11226, 11227, 11230, 11232, 11235, 11238, 11239, 11282, 11530, 11694, 11988, 12140, 12467, 12484, 12575, 12595, 12966, 13034, 15452, 15454, 15514, 15523, 16493 of 2019, 12462, 12672, 12675, 12768, 12790, 12963, 12975 of 2020, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1466, 1468, 1470, 1473, 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1495, 1498, 1501, 1506, 1508, 1550, 1558, 1559, 1560, 1562, 1566, 1672, 1673, 1702, 1708, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1743, 1813, 1858, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1873, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1892 of 2018, 102, 587, 692, 905, 910, 1024, 1094, 1307, 1482 of 2019
Decided On : 05-02-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 243Q - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 26(2) - National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3A,3D,and 26 - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Land - Acquisition - Petitioner is owner of agricultural land - Village falls within the JDA area - Competent authority under Section 3A of National Highways Act, 1956 issued a notification proposing acquisition of various lands including said lands of the petitioner for the purpose of four laning of national highway for Jodhpur ring road - Notification under Section 3D under the Act of 1956 was issued - Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer - An amount was awarded to petitioner which she received under protest - Whether the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing writ petitions – Held, In view of scheme of the Act of 2013 and judgment in case of Panjabrao (supra), court are of opinion that State Government could not have ventured in redefining the terms "Rural Area" and "Urban Area" once they had been so specifically defined under Rules of 2017 - Moreover, once a Factor is notified in accordance with the powers vested by Section 26(2) read with the First Schedule, variation of a Factor by redefining areas by way of resolutions would amount to colorable exercise of powers which suffers from excessive delegation and is therefore impermissible in law - For judicious exercise of discretion conferred by the First Schedule to Act of 2013, it was incumbent on part of respondent/State to undertake survey of calculating exact distance of all lands situated in rural areas from the nearest urban area and then based upon such actual distance multiplier factor ought to have been determined by it - Here again in court view this situation is not arising in the present case - In the case on hand State Government notification prescribes multiplier of 2 for land situated at a distance of more than 30 kilometers from the urban area - Decision of the Bombay High Court, does not apply to the present case - In the result, the petitions and appeals are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Akil Kureshi, J.
1. The challenge in this group of cases is to the manner of determination and quantum of compensation awarded to the land users under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013'). There are different flavours to this challenge, which may be noticed from the respective lead proceedings.
2. In case of Susila Kankariya v. State of Rajasthan and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5916/2021), the petitioner has challenged a portion of the notification dated 14.06.2016 issued by the State Government under which all the areas falling within the Jodhpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'JDA') are to be considered as urban areas for the purpose of determination of compensation under the Act of 2013.
The petitioner is owner of the agricultural land bearing khasra No.72 and 72/5 of village Doliya, Tehsil Jodhpur. The village falls within the JDA area. The competent authority under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 ('Act of 1956', for short) issued a notification dated 03.08.2018 proposing the acquisition of various lands including the said lands of the petitioner for the purpose of four laning of national highway for Jodhpur ring road. Notification under Section 3D under the Act of 1956 was issued on 07.12.2018. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 13.03.2019. An amount of Rs.1,29,60,462/- was awarded to the petitioner which she received on 24.12.2020 under protest.
The petitioner would point out that for awarding compensation, the provisions under the Act of 2013 are made applicable. Section 26 of the said Act provides for determination of market value of land by the Collector, relevant portion of which reads as under:
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1.--The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2.--For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.--While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration.
Explanation 4.--While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall b
The notification setting a multiplier of 1.00 for compensation calculation was struck down, necessitating a new notification to apply a multiplier of 2.00 for recalculating compensation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that passing an Award without applying the multiplier factor specified in the 1st schedule of the 2013 Act would be contrary to the provisions of S....
The court ruled that in land acquisition, established multiplication factors must be adhered to, as deviating from them unlawfully denies rightful compensation.
The court affirmed that the doctrine of stare decisis applies, and legal principles declared by courts generally have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated otherwise.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
