National Highways Authrority Of India v. Nirmal Kumar & ORS


   

 


 !" #$%$& $'$$$     
$& $              "()*  +   

,       

                   , 
 -    

          

           
$.* /%0 .# 1
% 2$&$ '$  ! "# #$#"%&% "#'

 '

 %&% # "#() %$&%  "#$*  %&% "#*   $  %&%  #
+* # #

  

,      *  &     &   && #-*% &

. * '

#./0
.1.+%

*      
2#1
#.1.+%
+#1.#.1.+%
0#13#.1.+  .0#14#.1.+% 5 6
  64%  & %

*   75& '8  9& ) %%     *(& 

8  

    : ;8(  *% &  * &&  & &   * *   '      &<6&6$* 9 " :CALA-cum-SDM;%6%

# .# ,  &% 8 &<      8     &&    



 : 6
+;        $& 3     



 &%
0+= :

    > 
0+= &?;%  &  .3#1+#.11/ %  % &  $& 39:
; & 
3#1+#.110#, &  8' % 6%     %  3
#1+#.1
1%    &   &<  ₹/0.= <  * $&3@:.; 
0+=&%##% &  *&# .#
#  9     %      

&   **  &  $&3@:+; 
0+=&  &  & %

% %   8  
+#

#.1

# ,  

&      9& )     *    *(&   $& 34   *'& &%
00=:

> 
00= &?;%  *?    &  

3    $& 3@:+;# ,         .
#13#.1
4# .#.#  ,  %  

 %-A#/101 .1
4%

&* '  &&

 % 
0#1+#.1
=%  *?    % >
  

  



    
   ₹   



 
  
 
   





 !!"

#   $%%&'( )*)*+,-?# .#3#  ,    *<       

&%

6'

6
4.6'6.1
2:AB";-A#/101.1
4%

     .1#
.#.1
2%   %>
 






  
 ₹$.    






  
 
  
/






!!"

#   0$%%&'()*)&*+(,-?#, % .1#
.#.1
2%  &    *     *   $  ' *   $ %

# .#4#  , %        5& 

& *   '  %     10#
1#.1
/      &      * &   &  &      & $&.3:
6;:.;

&<&%
/04:

> 
/04&?;#, 

&   *  * '*   % '

#2/2..1
/%      %& * *  5&

&# ,   '   

4 

#1+#.1.3*& %   &

     & &     6   &    * #  &   %    * * * $  '#   
 #1

!


%.1
0:0; $''314%& 2
 3!  4
 
  
 # 1 ! 


% .1.
 $'' A  $' 3
2+# && %  10#
1#.1
/ %  75& '& &&&   # .#+#   &&&% & &   * * * 75& '  * & &  * #, *(& *   & &   **     * $&3@:.; 
0+=&% *  & #, *(&  * 75& '  
2#1
#.1.+%&  8( *  * & &  & &  ** ' 6&6$9" *   ! 17.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the Objector is regarding the provisions under Section 3G (2) of the N.H. Act, 1956, which pertains to amount which is a statutory benefit as per NH Act. It is very much evident that this amount under Section 3G(2) of the N.H. Act, 1956, has been duly awarded by CALA and paid by the NHAI to the land owners on already paid amount at the time of passing of Award on dated 31.05.2010.

18.

Further, more importantly, as already observed that the benefit/amount under 3G (2) of the N.H. Act, 1956, awarded by CALA was never challenged by the NHAI in any court of law

+ till the finality of the present case in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As the issue of additional amount was challenged by the NHAI in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as in Hon'ble High Court also. The amount of easement money was duly awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in 2010 at the time of passing of award and if it was not acceptable to the NHAI, they could have challenged it before the Arbitrator or any other concerned Court, however, it was impliedly accepted and the amount was paid by the NHAI to the landowners including statutory benefits.

Now when the case has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and there is no such order of any court of law not to pay the easement money, the objections petition of the NHAI at this stage is not maintainable. Moreover, the benefits under Section 3G (2) of the N.H. Act, 1956 are in the nature of statutory benefits and are fixed amount calculated at 10% of the amount paid under Section 3G (2) of the N.H. Act, 1956. In my considered view, the calculations submitted by the CALA-cum-SDM, Amritsar-I are based upon correct appreciation of law, taking into account the statutory provisions of Law, while making all the necessary adjustment, before arriving at final conclusion by way of calculation.

On the contrary, the undated, unsigned and unverified calculation sheet submitted by the objector/JD are without any basis or logic. In view of the above observations, in my considered view, there is no ground to deny the benefits of Section 3G (2) of the N.H. Act, 1956. Hence, the present objections petition filed by the JD No.1/NHAI is hereby dismissed being without any merit. The objection petition is disposed of accordingly with direction to JDs to pay the balance amount of compensation as per the calculation sheet submitted by the CALA-cum-SDM, Amritsar-I forthwith.

3.

In this factual background, Mr. Madan, learned counsel for the petitioner/NHAI has contended that the Executing Court has wrongly held that benefit under Section 3G(2) of the 1956 Act is payable as statutory

= benefit. The same was never accepted as a statutory benefit by the petitioner, nor were the land owners awarded ten per cent easement amount under Section 3G(2) of the Act by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2017. The statutory benefits awarded to the respondents/land owners only pertain to the benefits admissible under Sections 23(2), (1-A) and 28 of the 1894 Act,

  *        *  &   *  &  %  &  &&    &#  %  

    *    8   %  *   * '
0#1+#.1
=%       * 
/04&#, &  *  %&   & %        * ' %     3
#1+#.1
1%  #,    5&    *< %.1#
.#.1
2% *   '# ,  5&  <       &   #$& *  *   8  * '*&    &% 75& ' (&&    # &   & &     1

!&:

 ;  %&  $&3@:.; 
0+=&& *      %  

 &   &< 
0+=&#,         %  &&         &  #

2 4# 5   
 "# ) %   &     8  &     * ' .1
1%      *  # ,      &    *   %        

&  '*  

    *(& * *#7&*(& 

   *  %          && C  & * &        #     %   &         $  ' ( 67  ) ) # 

  4 5  


%.1

:
;$''
02%&       <  * &    *           ?  

#     *  *    * %    

&*    # %      ( 1

!&:

 ;&  $&3@:2) of the 1956 Act is a valuable right given to the land owners for which they are entitled to be compensated, as held in paragraph 44 of the judgment. And the provision of Section 3G(2) recognising easement right was never struck down by the Court. Accordingly, the respondents/land owners cannot be denied entitlement to easement .

5.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

6.

The undisputed facts on record are, the petitioner/NHAI acquired the land belonging to    for construction of a national highway, NH-15, vide notification dated 23.05.2008. CALA

/ awarded them compensation at the rate of ₹8926 per square yard along with easement  under Section 3G(2) of the 1956 Act, vide award dated 31.05.2010. The same was paid to the land owners as well along with the compensation awarded. A limited challenge to the award seeking enhancement of compensation was made by the land owners before the Arbitrator by filing a petition under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act, which was dismissed vide award dated 15.11.2011. Objections against the same filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act were also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 21.03.2014. Finally, in appeal this Court, vide order dated 20.12.2017, enhanced the compensation to ₹26,000 per square yard along with statutory benefits as per ratio of 



 
 !!&:

 ;%*  *? #, &

 &    && &       %

  *&<*   
0+=&%    *  $& .3:.;  ./   
/04 &%  &  $& 3@  3)   
0+= &    & 
4   ' 5   *   #,    $  '    *1

!&:

 ;%

  ! 52.

... We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1-A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3-J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9599 of 2019 is dismissed.

0 && %  *   *  $&.3:
6;%:.; $&./  
/04&  &  &<   ₹.=%111 <%.1#
.#.1
2# 2#  & &<    

   
0+= &     *     

! 3@# 9 * & #D:
;  &< &%   *   

    *  *     &  # :.;  E    

     

       % &< &%   *

    



  (      * &   

*& &<& &   &% *6&:
;%   # 

%%& &  &  &    *6& :
;  $& 3@% *&

*  



( &<  * &

* &<#  *

           *  1

 ! & :

 ;  C 44.

Section 3-G(2) makes it clear that rights of user and rights in the nature of easement being valuable property rights, compensation must be payable therefor. It is obvious that there is no double payment to the owner on this score as the owner and/or any other person has to prove that a right in the nature of an easement has also been taken away. Obviously, the right of


1 user being subsumed in acquisition of ownership, the owner cannot get a double benefit on this score. The right of user is, therefore, referable only to persons other than the owner, who may have tenancy rights, and other rights of licence on land which is acquired under the National Highways Act. It &  *    &  *    

     % 

  8  *   

8 

 &<  *  # 2#
#  F  %  8   *  $&3@:.; 
0+=&*'   3
#1+#.1
1%

5&  # *  &   &< #,   *  &  ₹.=%111  <      *  
/04&%.1#
.#.1
2#, $& 3@:.; 
0+=&&    



  *&* &<   *  & &  & &    *6&:
;$&3@#*     

   * % *      *  *   8      * ' %%

*&& * 8 # , &   #, % ?   &*   &&   * '&*<# 2#.#  "# "   &      &     8   * *



   '  $& 3@:.;   
0+= &#    %  .1#
.#.1
2%   &&  &<  

  *%     *# ,    &&  %  & * && #  & *%   8   %   

  

    **  %*&   & $& 3@:.;   &  & # ,  < &    

**   *   *#- % &&*"#"*   & %     * '% .1#
.#.1
2%&*5&

*  *       *   
/04 &      % * #,   &%5&  '    #&     &  &<   *$&3@:.;'  3
#1+#.1
1# ,   &   *  C    &  $&3@:+;    &  & 

 &  *   *%    *   9&) *& *(& %*   *   '  

     .1#
.#.1
2% *     *? # &'    5&  &<  * #, &   %& * & * *& &#

*&&  *   &*


.

      &  

  

&    &    &#,     &   &  #%   %.1#
.#.1
2% '    %

*5&* *# /#   &% % 75&  '  &  &  &   5&

&:;5  &&&   # 0# 

&  ( *  & &&

#   3% 2$&$ '$,       # &

 1/#12#.1.+ "     8 ! G8     *  ! G8