Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Parties :Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate Mr. Dharam Chand Mittal, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. R.K. Narang, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant review petition has been preferred by the applicant whereby it seeks review/modification of paragraphs No. 15 and 16, as occur in the verdict as made by this Court, on 06.03.2024, upon CWP-4652-2024. The said paragraphs are extracted hereinafter.

"15. Be that as it may, yet when for reasons (supra), this Court has declared the notification (Annexure P-13), and, the notices (Annexures P-14 and P-18) to be detracting from the principles of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 26 of the judgment (supra), thereby in the respondents concerned, re-drawing the relevant notification, for thereby thus the expostulation of law, as carried in paragraph 27 of the verdict (supra), para whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, rather do not become eroded vis-a-vis their efficacy.

16. Consequently, this Court after upholding the letter of authorization (Annexure P-12), and, after quashing Annexures P-13, P-14 and P-18, directs the respondents concerned, to re-draw the apposite notification, and, thereafter to re-draw the apposite show cause notice, but only after adherence being made to the above stated expostulations of law, as made in the verdict (supra), inasmuch as, designating the person as "competent authority", who otherwise is but a trained judicial mind or has the requisite qualifications to well exercise the wide range of powers for determining the compensation to the land owners concerned, rather upon the respondent(s) concerned, making user of the said sub land(s). "

2. Through the above extracted paragraphs, this Court had after quashing Annexures P-13, P-14, P-18, thus had directed the respondent concerned, to re-draw the apposite notification and thereafter to re-draw the apposite show cause notice. The said direction(s) became rested on the premise that the District Revenue Officer concerned, rather was not a trained judicial mind, thereby, the expostulation law as occurs in paragraph No. 31 of the verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as 'Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya and others versus State of Gujarat and others', reported in (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 791, thus becoming breached. The said paragraph No. 31 as occurs in the verdict (supra), is also extracted hereinafter.

"31. It is axiomatic that a person who occupies the position of Competent Authority under the PMP Act must evoke and enjoy public confidence. Neither the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder deal with the qualifications required of a person before his appointment as Competent Authority nor do they deal with any transparent process for such appointment. We may now turn to see the requirements in that behalf in an enactment which is pari materia. Section 2(1) (e) of the Metro Railway (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (Metro Act, for short), defines Competent Authority as the one appointed under Section 16. Section 16(2) then sets out,

Like the PMP Act, the Metro Act also confers power upon the Competent Authority therein to consider objections to the construction of the Metro Railway or any other work and to determine the amount payable for acquisition. The orders passed by the Competent Authority under the Metro Act are also appealable before an Appellate Authority. In our view, the Competent Authority under the provisions of the PMP Act must also be someone who is holding or has held a Judicial Office not lower in rank than that of a Subordinate Judge or is a trained legal mind. If such requirement is not read into and not taken as an integral and essential qualification before appointment of any person as Competent Authority, the provisions in that behalf will not be consistent with the doctrine of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, we hasten to add that actions taken by the Competent Authority till now, will not in any way stand impaired or be invalidated purely on this count. But the Central Government may do well to step in immediately and remedy the s