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

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
SHANKAR SINGH KOTHARI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WPC 1286/2018



Advocates:
['ASHISH SURANA', '', 'ANUPAM DAR', 'FOUZIA MIRZA', '', 'A G', 'ASSTT S G']

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Writ Petition (Civil) No.1286 of 2018

Shankar Singh Kothari S/o Shri Kanhaiyya Lal Kothari, Aged About 53

Years R/o Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon

Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And

Highways, New Delhi

2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director,

National Highway No. 06, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, House

No. 5196, Behind BTI College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Project

Implementation Unit, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) House No. 5196, Behind

BTI College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Sub Divisional O昀케cer Revenue-Cum-Competent Authority/Land

Acquisition O昀케cer (National Highway Acquisition) Rajnandgaon,

District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

– Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate.

For State

– Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

S.B.- Hon'ble Shri Justice

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order on Board

07-03-2022

Heard

1. This petition has been brought praying for issuance of appropriate

Writ directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to make payment of the

amount of compensation as determined vide award dated 21.12.2017

in the Land Acquisition Case No.1A-82/2016-17.

-2-

2. The land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by respondent No.2

for the purpose of widening and upgradation of National Highway

No.06. Land acquisition proceeding was initiated, in which the award

dated 21.12.2017 has been passed granting compensation of

Rs.1,06,49,302/- for the acquired land & property and Rs.15,93,644/-

for rehabilitation and settlement. No amount of compensation has

been paid to the petitioner till date. Hence, this petition.

3. Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 are not represented. However, written reply

has been 昀椀led by them, in which it is stated that the award dated

21.12.2017 is not in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013, therefore, the request of review has been

made to the competent authority (Land Acquisition) and Sub-divisional

O昀케cer (Revenue) by a request letter dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure-R-

2/2), therefore, the petition is without any substance.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions and has prayed

for passing of appropriate orders.

5. In reply, it is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent No.1, 2

and 3 have the remedy available under Section 3G of the National

Highways Act, 1956 (in short “the Act, 1956”), which they have not

availed, therefore, withholding of the compensation amount by them

is arbitrary.

6. Considered on the submissions. It is clear that the respondent No.4

has determined the compensation in favour of the petitioner as per

the provision under Section 3G of the Act, 1956. Sub-section 5 of

Section 3(G) provides that “If the amount determined by the

competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not

acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application

by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be

appointed by the Central Government.” Apart from that, there is no

other provision under the Act, 1956 granting the power of review to

competent authority/S.D.O. Revenue. The question whether the Land

Acquisition O昀케cer/S.D.O. (Revenue) has the power to review amend or

modify the 昀椀nal award passed by it or not has been considered by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Nachrani and

Others Vs. Union of India and others passed in W.P.(C.) No.665 of

2019 decided on 14.09.2020 and it is observed in paragraph 19, which

is as follows:-

“19.From the reading of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of

the various High Courts as also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court a fact

which stands established is that unless the provision of l

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