The court directed the competent authority to recompute land acquisition compensation applying Factor-2, ensuring all statutory benefits are included and completed within three months.

ORAL ORDER

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

1. At the outset, Mr. D.K. Puj, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has instructed him not to press the claim made in the prayer clause of the writ petition to re-calculate the additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum, as per Section 30(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act, 2013), by recomputing the market value with the application of Factor-’2’.

2. The submission is that the prayer made in the writ petition to this extent is withdrawn with the instruction of the petitioner. Now the only question remains is appropriate recalculation of compensation by applying Factor-’2’ (as per Section 26(2) of the Act, 2013) including the award of solatium under Section 30(1) and other benefits under the Act, 2013, if admissible, excluding the additional compensation as per Section 30(3) of the Act, 2013.

3. The similar dispute has been decided by us vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in Daud Musa Isap @ Daud Musa Sheth vs. Competent Authority, being Special Civil Application No.6406 of 2023, in the following manner :-

“1. The petitioners herein seek re-determination of 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 27.06.2017 in LAQ/Vadodara-Mumbai Express way/Thaam Compensation Case No.17/2013 is to be modified by recomputation of the compensation qua the land of the writ petitioners 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 marker 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 petitioners, but, in any case, the area in question 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.

3. As factor 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, Vadodara for fresh consideration. In the determination to be made by the competent authority, all attending circumstances/factors are to be taken into consideration.

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

5. Once that determination is made with regard to the area in question falling in the rural area, necessary amendments/ revision in the award dated 27.06.2017 shall be made by the competent authority for re-computation of the market value of the compensation and the benefits admissible thereon. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, the present Special Civil Application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.”

4. The only issue which is flagged in the instant petition is that the petitioner herein is not the sole