Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Vimal Kumar Tulsyan S/o Gangaram Tulsyan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2295 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shailesh Kr. Singh.
For the Respondents: Amar Kumar, Sweety Topno, Amrit Raj Kisku.
IMPORTANT POINT
Proper demarcation and valuation of acquired land and structures are essential for determining compensation under the National Highway Authority Act, 1956.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - National Highway Authority Act, 1956 - Arbitration Case No. 2/2019 - Inspection for fair quantification of compensation and valuation of acquired land and structures - NHAI Act 1956
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's land was acquired under the National Highway Authority Act, 1956. The Arbitrator closed the proceedings without quantifying the compensation, leading to disputes over the valuation of the land and structures.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to appear before the District Land Acquisition Officer for demarcation and valuation of the acquired land and structures, with participation from the NHAI and government officials.
Issues: Dispute over valuation of acquired land and structures, failure of the Arbitrator to quantify compensation, and the need for demarcation and valuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proper demarcation and valuation of acquired land and structures, directing the parties to participate in the process and raising objections before the Arbitrator.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, with the court directing the demarcation and valuation process and the subsequent quantification of compensation by the Arbitrator.
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ especially in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent no. 5 to immediately and forthwith make proper inspection for fair quantification of compensation as regards the existing structures/fixtures standing over the land appertaining to Mouza Jiyalgora, P.S. No. 129, Khata No. 30, Plot No. 412, 413, 414 & 416 Total Rakba 0.3897 acres of land which has been acquired for the purpose of up-gradation of existing NH-2 Two Lane Road to Six Lane Road as has been ordered by the Court of Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator Dhanbad (being a competent authority for Land Acquisition under NHAI Act 1956) in Arbitration Case No. 2/2019 vide order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure-2).
The inspection is necessary for determining the quantum of enhanced compensation based on the existing structures/fixtures.
(b) For an appropriate order commanding upon the respondent no. 5 to stop/restrain from taking any action of demolition of the structures/fixtures standing over the land appertaining to mouza Jiyalgora, P.S. No. 129, Khata No. 30, Plot No. 412, 413, 414 & 416 Total Rakba 0.3897 acres of land till the exercise of inspection for fair quantification of compensation is completed as per the order passed by the Court of Additional Collector- cum-Arbitrator Dhanbad (being a competent authority for Land Acquisition under NHAI Act 1956) in Arbitration Case No. 2/2019 order dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure-2).”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land of the petitioner has been acquired under the provisions of National Highway Authority Act, 1956 and the matter was considered by the court of Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Dhanbad in Arbitration Case No. 2 of 2019.
4. He submits that certain directions were issued by the Arbitrator vide order dated 09.07.2019 for on-the-spot inspection by the District Land Acquisition Officer/NHAI to consider the actual nature of land and valuation was directed to be done at market rate and also of the structure standing on the property.
5. The learned counsel submits that the learned Arbitrator, instead of waiting for the valuation and passing an appropriate order in terms of the quantum of compensation to be paid to the petitioner, has closed the proceedings. The learned counsel submits that the valuation was to be done and then the valuation was to be placed before the learned Arbitrator for quantifying the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner which was to be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to aforesaid order, certain exercise has been undertaken by the respondents. He submits that the District Land Acquisition Officer has valued the land only and the same has been done at commercial rate and in the valuation itself, it has been mentioned that portion of the land was converted from residential category to commercial category and thereafter, the valuation was done. The learned counsel submits that the land acquired by the respondents has already been demarcated, but the structure which is falling in the acquired land, has not been valued.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted that though no counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case, but if any structure is falling within the acquired area, then the valuation of the structure is required to be done. He has also submitted that as per the petitioner, there are certain electrical installations and they could constitute movable property which the petitioner is free to take away and valuation is required to be done if the building structure falls within the acquired area.
8. The learned counsel on behalf of the State has further submitted that so far as demarcation of the acquired land is concerned, if
