2018 (1) TMI 1657 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of final awards that were passed and the MoRTH as well as PWD had already deposited - case of the petitioners is that since the compensation were not paid to the land holders in respect of the majority of the land under acquisition on or before 31.12.2014 - whether Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 is applicable to the NH Act of 1956 or not? - HELD THAT - The Acquisition Act of 2013 came into force on 01.01.2014,wherein Sub-section (1) of Section 105 of the Acquisition Act of2013 provides that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. The NH Act of 1956 figured in the Fourth Schedule at Serial No.7 - it is clear that the applicability of the Acquisition Act of 2013 has been given effect in respect of the enactment specified in Fourth Schedule including the NH Act of 1956 with effect from 01.01.2015. It is to be noticed that as per Sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 (as amended), the provision of the Acquisition Act of 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule have only been applied in the NH Act of 1956 and Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 is not made applicable to the acquisitions made under the NH Act of 1956 - it is held that Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 has no application in the acquisition proceedings under the NH Act of 1956. Whether the determination of compensation in lieu of the acquisition of land of the petitioners is to be determined as per the First Schedule of the Acquisition Act of 2013 or not? - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the final awards in respect of the notification issued under Section 3A of the NH Act of 1956 were issued under Section 3G of the NH Act of 1956 prior to 31.12.2014 and whole amount of compensation was deposited by the MoRTH and the PWD with the CALA before 31.12.2014. The petitioners have admitted that they have received the compensation as deter mined in the awards passed under Section 3G of the NH Act of 1956 and they have not disputed this fact that they received the said compensation amount prior to 31.12.2014 - assertion is made on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions as well as during the course of argument that the majority of the land owners was not paid the compensation before 31.12.2014, yet no material is produced on record to prove the said fact. Only the information, said to have been received under the Right to Information Act, is furnished in some of the writ petitions, however, from the said information, it cannot be gathered that compensation was not paid to the majority of the land owners on or before 31.12.2014. It is not in dispute that the acquiring authority i.e. MoRTH and the PWD had already deposited the whole amount of compensation with the CALA before 31.12.2014 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the compensation was not paid before31.12.2014. The disbursement of compensation to the landowners is the function of the Land Acquisition Officer and if there is any laxity on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in disbursing the compensation amount, the acquiring authority cannot be held liable for the said inaction. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 to the NH Act of 1956.
2. Determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule of the Acquisition Act of 2013 for land acquisition cases under the NH Act of 1956.

Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 to the NH Act of 1956:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 is applicable to the NH Act of 1956. The court examines the legal provisions and amendments made to the Acquisition Act of 2013. It notes that the Acquisition Act of 2013 initially excluded enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule, which included the NH Act of 1956. However, subsequent amendments through ordinances and notifications extended the applicability of certain provisions of the Acquisition Act of 2013, including compensation determination, to enactments in the Fourth Schedule, effective from January 1, 2015. The court concludes that Section 24 of the Acquisition Act of 2013 does not apply to land acquisition proceedings under the NH Act of 1956.

2. Determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule of the Acquisition Act of 2013:
The judgment further delves into the determination of compensation for land acquisition under the NH Act of 1956. It highlights that final awards were issued and compensation amounts were deposited with the Competent Authority for the land acquisition before December 31, 2014. The court emphasizes that the petitioners acknowledged receiving compensation as per the final awards prior to the specified date. Referring to guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the court explains that cases where compensation had not been fully deposited before January 1, 2015, would require determination based on the First Schedule of the Acquisition Act of 2013. However, in cases where compensation had been paid to landowners for the majority of the acquired land before December 31, 2014, the acquisition process was considered settled and not subject to reopening. The court dismisses the writ petitions, finding no merit in the claims made by the petitioners and rules in favor of the respondents.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the applicability of legal provisions and guidelines governing land acquisition under the NH Act of 1956 in light of the Acquisition Act of 2013. It clarifies the legal framework, amendments, and practical implications concerning compensation determination and settlement of land acquisition cases, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.