The court held that delay in seeking re-determination of compensation barred the petitioners' claims, emphasizing that executive guidelines cannot override statutory provisions.

ORDER :

(P.B. BALAJI, J.)

The writ petitioners seek issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent to re-determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in terms of First Schedule of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 in compliance of Section 105(3) of the Act 2013.

2. I have heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mrs.S.Jeyapriya, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1, 2 and 5 and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4. I have gone through the records and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that all these writ petitioners were owners of the respective lands situated at Ottanchathiram Village, Dindigul District, and since the Government of India intended to acquire the lands for formation of Four lanes by-pass road, etc., a Notification came to be issued on 17.07.2008, in terms of which the second respondent was designated as the competent authority. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the lands of the writ petitioners were included in the notification published under Section 3A(3) of the Act 1956 and subsequently 3D(1) of the Act 1956, published on 31.08.2012 and Gazetted on 06.09.2012 and the second respondent thereafter passed an award on 30.12.2013, determining the compensation payable to the petitioners.

4. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that dissatisfied with the amount awarded to the petitioners, they initiated Arbitration Proceedings as envisaged under the Act. The learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the date of coming into force of the Act , viz., 01.01.2014 and the fact that certain provisions of the said Act became applicable to other Acts mentioned in the 4^th Schedule and one of the said Acts was the National Highways Act , 1956. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that with effect from 01.01.2015, in terms of Section 105(3) of the Act 30/2013, the provisions of Act 30/2013 become applicable to the acquisition proceedings under the National Hgihways Act, 1956. The learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the comprehensive guidelines dated 28.12.2017 issued by the Government of India , Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in respect of issues regarding payment of compensation in cases of lands acquired under the National Highways Act .

5. The learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the guidelines 4.6(iii), which reads as follows:

“(iii) By now, it is also a settled proposition that the First, Second and Third Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 shall be applicable to the NH Act , 1956 with effect from 01.01.2015. As such, the following is clarified:

(a) All cases of Land acquisition where the Awards had not been announced under Section 3G of the NH Act till 31.12.2014 or where such awards had been announced but compensation had not been paid in respect of majority of the land holdings under acquisition as on 31.12.2014, the compensation would be payable in accordance with the First Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

(b) In cases, where the land acquisition process was initiated and award of compensation under Section 3G had also been announced before 01.01.2015 but the full amount of Award had not been deposited by the acquiring agency with the CALA, the compensation amount would be liable to be determined in accordance with the First Schedule w.e.f. 01.01.2015;

(c) In cases, where the process of acquisition of land stood completed (i.e.Award under Section 3G announced by CALA, amount deposited by the acquiring agency with the CALA, and compensation paid to the landowners in respect of majority of the land under acquisition) as on or before 31.12.2014, the process would be deemed to have been completed and settled. Such cases would not be re-o