Pawan Kumar Pandey v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1655 of 2021

1. Pawan Kumar Pandey S/o Ram Sanehi Pandey Aged About 61 Years

2. Jagdish Prasad Nirmalakar S/o Chhedilal Aged About 55 Years

3. Nakshatra Bali Patel S/o Mohan Patel Aged About 47 Years

4. Pardeshi Ram Patel S/o Panchram Patel Aged About 51 Years

5. Ghasiram Patel S/o Banvali Patel Aged About 65 Years

6. Ramratan Patel S/o Gopal Patel Aged About 40 Years

7. Prahlad Patel S/o Bisaahu Patel Aged About 56 Years

8. Shiv Kumar S/o Panchram Aged About 63 Years

9. Vishram Patel S/o Mohan Lal Patel Aged About 59 Years 10.Babloolal Patel S/o Mohan Lal Patel Aged About 67 Years

11. Ghanshyam Patel S/o Mohan Lal Patel Aged About 62 Years 12.Jai Shankar Pandey S/o Ram Sanehi Pandey Aged About 55 Years All are the R/o Village Nirtu Tehsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street New Delhi

2. Project Director National Highway Authority Of India (NHAI) Project Implementation Unit D-61, H I G - 1 Abhilasha Parisar Behind New Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Collector Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

5. Sub - Divisional Officer Cum Competent Authority Land Acquisition Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chattisgarh

6. Inspector General Registration And Superintendent Of Stamp G S T Bhawan Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri K.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1/UOI :

Shri Ramakant Mishra, ASG For Respondents/State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order 22/03/20

1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition seems to be the inadequate compensation that the petitioners have been awarded in the course of acquiring their properties for the purpose of construction of National Highway No. 130.

2. According to the petitioners, the authorities have not applied proper multiplier while quantifying the compensation. Similarly, the authorities concerned have applied different yardsticks for similar nature of properties lying adjacent to each other and in the process, different rates of compensation have been given to different owners which also is arbitrary.

3. Perusal of the record would show that the properties were acquired in the present case applying the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short "the Act of 1956"). Section 3 G (5) of the Act of 1956 reads as under: "3G(5) 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."

4. It has been informed by the learned ASG that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as the authority to act as an Arbitrator for determining proper compensation. Since the lands of the petitioners have been acquired and they are aggrieved with the multiplier applied in the process of quantifying the compensation, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is one which needs to be dealt with the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner under the provisions of Section 3 G (5) of the Act of 1956.

5. Subject to the petitioners approaching the Additional Commissioner, it is expected that the Additional Commissioner shall take into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh and also other

guidelines and parameters that have been laid down for the purpose of quantifying compensation. It is also expected that the Additional Commissioner shall decide the same objectively by passing a speaking order. The petitioners are directed to raise their dispute before the Additional Commissioner in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of 2 weeks from today and the Additional Commissioner is expected to take a decision at the earliest preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioners.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. SSd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu