ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. The petitioner herein seeks re-determination of compensation on the premise that they are entitled for compensation on the premise that they are entitled for compensation treating the area in question as “Rural Area” as defined in the Gujarat Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The assertion in the writ petition is that the term “Rural Area” has been defined in the Rules, 2017 to mean any area except the area covered by any urban local bodies and cantonment board or “ Developed Area” declared by the Government. The contention is that the determination with regard to the area in question being the rural area has not been made at the time of determination of compensation. The contention is thus that the award dated 10.03.2017 for construction of six lanes of National Highway No.8 Compensation is to be modified by re-computation of the compensation qua the land of the writ petitioner by multiplying the market value as determined under Section 26(1) of the LARR,2013 Act with a Factor 2 and applying all other statutory benefits as per the said Act including solatium and interest admissible on the market rate as per 2013 Act.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing for the respondent National Highway Authority of India would submit that the respondents have no objection to the re- determination of compensation, as prayed by the writ petitioner, but, in any case, the area in question is falling in rural area within the meaning of 2017 Rules and application of Factor 2 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Act, 2013 is to be made by the competent authority. It is pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing for the respondent National Highway Authority of India that the names of the petitioner cannot be found in the award prepared by the competent authority and moreover, the other co-tenure holders of the land-in-question have not been impleaded herein. The objection is that the matter may be relegated to the competent authority for decision at the instance of one of the co-owners.

3. The petitioners herein claim to be joint owners and occupants of non-agricultural and bearing Block / Survey no.128 of village: Navagam, Taluka: Kamrej, District: Surat and they claim to be in possession of the land in question. The issue raised herein is with regard to determination of the compensation by the competent authority ignoring Factor-2 in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

4. Insofar as the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the locus of the petitioners to raise the dispute is concerned, we are of the view that one of the co-owners in the capacity of representative can raise a dispute with regard to determination of compensation on his behalf and on behalf of other co-owners. However, after determination, disbursement of enhanced compensation, if any, shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act pertaining to apportionment of compensation.

5. As factual inquiry is required to be made, we are of the considered opinion that the matter be relegated to the competent authority- Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highway Authority of India, Surat for fresh consideration. In the determination to be made by the competent authority, all attending circumstances/factors are to be taken into consideration.

6. Notice be also provided to the respondent National Highway Authority of India whose representatives can participate in the process of re-determination.

7. Once the determination is made with regard to the area in question falling in the rural area, necessary amendments/revision in the award dated 10.03.2017 shall be made by the competent authority for re-computation of the market value of the