The existence of alternative remedies under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act precludes the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court.

ORDER :

SANDEEP SHAH, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petitions essentially challenging the amount of compensation awarded to them vide order dated 10.03.2015 as also praying for compliance of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as “Act of 2013”) and also with the prayer to redetermine the amount of the award as per the market value as given to adjoining agricultural land situated adjoining to the land of the petitioners. For sake of convenience the prayer made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4885/2018 is reproduced as under:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(A) The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(B) The respondents may by directed to redetermine the award of the petitioner by applying the marked value as given to land owners of adjoining agricultural lands situated adjoining to petitioner land which is Rs.115/- per sq. ft.

(C) The respondents may be directed to calculate market value of petitioner land in proportionate of agricultural land of the neighbouring land owners;

(D) The respondents may kindly be directed to pay interest and other ancillary benefit for which the petitioner is entitled to under the Act of 2013;

(E) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(F) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a submission that for the near by agricultural land an amount of compensation paid is much higher than the amount paid for the land of the petitioners, which admittedly has been converted for residential purposes. He thus, submits that there is vast variation in the amount of compensation as regards the land of the petitioners and the adjoining agricultural land. He further submits thus, the award passed is cryptic and the adjudication, as far as compensation is concerned, is in-correct as the learned Collector has not adopted the criteria as provided under Section 26 of the Act of 2013, for assessing and determining the market value of the land.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objections that against the award passed, remedy is available and even the petitioners have approached the reference Court prior to filing the present writ petition. One of such reference application, wherein notice have also been issued is placed on record as Annexure R-1 in the reply to Civil Writ Petition No. 4885/2018 (Smt. Sangeeta Jain vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.). It has further been submitted that the Act of 2013 is a code in itself and any person aggrieved against the amount of compensation as determined by the Collector under the award has alternative efficacious remedy to approach the reference Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has however supported the award and stated that the Collector has determined the market value based upon the criteria provided under Section 26 of the Act of 2013 only. Learned counsel has also raised an objection that there is a gross delay in challenging the award as the same was passed on 10.03.2015, whereas the present writ petitions have been filed after three years delay in the years 2018. He thus, submits that on this count also the writ petitions deserves dismissal.

4. Admittedly, against the determination of amount of compensation through an award, a remedy has been provided under the Act of 2013 itself which is a complete code in itself pertaining to Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Law. A specific provision has been made und