SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Garg – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 28804 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Charanpal S, Bagri, Advocate and Dr. Gurjit Kaur Bagri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, Mr. R.S.Madan, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, DAG, Mr. Gaurav Deep Goyal, Advocate for Mr. K.S.Kang, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3-A, 3-C, 3-D and 3-G - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 26 to 30, 31, 32, 38, and 105 - Petition for immediate and appropriate compensation for land acquisition - Petitioner's request for 100% compensation and 18% interest from the date of award is upheld by court, reaffirming the duty to ensure just compensation. (Paras 1-41)

(B) Compensation Entitlement - Court emphasized that fair and timely compensation must be paid to landowners, and any delay is detrimental to civil rights. The petitioner does not qualify as an 'affected family' as only a portion of land was acquired. (Paras 4, 24, 38)

(C) Infrastructure Projects - The court reiterated that the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prohibits injunctions against infrastructure projects, underscoring the public interest in such endeavors. (Paras 39)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought relief regarding compensation for land acquired for National Highway No. 205K without proper assessment, and claimed damages for demolition of structures unlawfully. The NHIA contested the petitioner’s claims by asserting lawful possession and adequate compensation channels exist.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition affirming that statutory mandates were met, and all acquisition processes were compliant, advising the petitioner to seek compensation enhancements through proper legal channels.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the validity of the compensation processes and the necessity of a Social Impact Assessment report.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the provisions for social impact assessments did not apply as the acquisition pertained to a different statute, and existing remedies through statutory channels were sufficient for addressing compensation grievances.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through the instant petition, the petitioner asks for assigning the hereinafter reliefs:-

(a) To release 100% compensation awarded by Competent Authority for Land Acquisition-cum-DRO, Ludhiana vide Award No. 69 dated 27.09.2021 immediately without any delay or laches.

(b) To pay to the petitioner at least 18% interest on the amount of compensation from the date of award to the actual date of payment.

(c) To pass the supplementary award for land provefore, the said Second and Third Schedule, as become appended to the Act of 2013, require(s) an allusion thereto becoming made. Necessarily for delving into, besides for ensuring a deep analysis thereof, the extraction of the said Schedules, is imperative, as such the said Schedules are ad verbatim extracted hereining the remaining part of compensation to be assessed strictly in view of section 26 to 30 and First Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013).

(d) To pass the award for structures strictly in view of section 26 to 30 and First Schedule of the Act of 2013, on getting the assessment made by a Central or State Govt. official/agency.

(e) To pass the R&R Award providing benefits and entitlements enshrined under Second and Third Schedule and section 31, 32, 38 and 105(3) of the Act of 2013.

(f) To provide the compensation, all benefits and entitlements to the petitioner, as provided to the similar situated persons affected by the acquisition of their land and properties for construction of certain other National Highways namely NH-707 Poanta Sahib-Gumma-Fediz, NH-70 Hamirpur-Mandi, NH-15 Ras-Beawar-Mandal, NH-516E Bowdara-Vizianagram, NH-516E Paderu-Araku, NH-516E Koyyuru-Paderu, NH-730C & NH-731K Bewar-Pilibhit, NH-92 Bewar-Etawah projects, on the ground of parity.

(g) To issue a notification to exempt the unacquired portion of land of petitioner adjacent to proposed road from the purview of restrictions or requirement of "No Construction Zone' of 30 meters or provide adequate amount of compensation for the land which has rendered unusable due to these No Construction Zone restrictions.

(h) Provide adequate amount of compensation for the land and structures which are not subject matter of acquisition, but are adversely affected due to this acquisition.

(i) Provide service lane/road, for access to and from the property left unacquired.

Factual Background

2. On 25.11.2020, a notification under Section 3-A of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956') (Annexure P-1) became issued. The said notification was meant for acquiring the land for National Highway No. 205K Ludhiana-Rupnagar Section. The petition land is comprised in khasra No. 26//22 (0.1391), and, khasra No. 26//23/1 (0.0202). After the issuance of the said notification, the petitioner filed objections under Section 3-C of the Act of 1956. Subsequently, on 15.4.2021, a notification under Section 3-D of the Act of 1956, became issued but after making a decision, upon the objections, as became filed under Section 3-C of the Act of 1956 by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed objections under Section 3-C of the Act of 1956, and the said objections were again dismissed on 9.9.2021, thus by the competent authority concerned. On 27.9.2021 (Annexure P-3), an award was made in respect of the acquired lands, by the competent authority concerned.

3. However, the award (supra) became challenged by the National Highway Authority of India (for short ' NHAI'), thus under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, and, the said challenge is subjudice before the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Patiala.

4. The contentions, as raised in the instant writ petition for claiming the above espoused reliefs, are rested upon:-

(a) That despite no compensation becoming assessed for the acquired land, and, for structures existing thereins, yet the NHAI assuming forcible possession, besid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top