2014 (7) TMI 1378 - HC - Indian Laws

Demand of Compensation - Validity of Award - challenge has been raised to the validity of the acquisition proceedings contending that since the notification under Section 3-D of the Act was published within the prescribed time, it has ceased - it is alleged that the procedure adopted for awarding compensation is erroneous - HELD THAT - There is a statutory obligation for publishing the notice in two newspapers for the purpose of award of compensation under Section 3-G of the Act. The petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph 20 of the writ petition that no such notice was ever published nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to file any objections. Sri Mehrotra submits that the notification dated 3.11.2011 should be considered to be a notification published in the newspaper under Section 3-G of the Act. It is observed that that the said notification is a notification under Section 3-D and is not a notification under Section 3-G of the Act. The averment contained in paragraph 28 of the counter affidavit is, therefore, misleading. The respondents, therefore, have not complied with a statutory provision containing the principles of natural justice engrafted in the Act itself. It is settled law that if an act requires to be performed after publication of the notice in the newspaper then it is not a mere formality and the matter relating to award of compensation dealing with substantive right of a tenure holder cannot be defeated by delivering the award without complying with the aforesaid provision. Once it is held that the award is in violation of principles of natural justice then it is not necessary for this Court to relegate the petitioner to the remedy under the 1996 Act. The award itself being contrary to the provisions of Section 3-G and in contravention thereof, we have no hesitation to hold that the said act of the authority was in complete disregard of the statutory provisions resulting in violation of principle of natural justice. The question, therefore, availing of any alternative remedy by the petitioner on the facts of this case does not arise. The award which has been rendered in relation to the agricultural land of the petitioner is clearly in violation of Section 3-G of the Act as the award itself also nowhere recites that any such notice was published in the newspaper as required in the said provision. Consequently, the impugned award dated 30.4.2013 to the said extent is quashed. Petition allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to the award in relation to land constructed by respondent-Authority under National Highway Authority Act, 1956; Validity of acquisition proceedings; Compensation assessment for standing construction; Compliance with statutory provisions for compensation under Section 3-G of the Act; Violation of principles of natural justice in awarding compensation.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the award related to land constructed by the respondent-Authority under the National Highway Authority Act, 1956, and questioned the validity of acquisition proceedings. The petitioner argued that the acquisition should be quashed due to the publication of the notification under Section 3-D of the Act within the prescribed time. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the compensation assessment for the standing construction was erroneous and violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that compensation could not be determined without assessing the value of the building and without providing an opportunity to file objections. The court found that the notifications issued under Section 3-D of the Act were valid and did not cease as per the terms of the Act. The court also noted that the award failed to comply with the statutory provisions for compensation assessment under Section 3-G of the Act.

The respondent argued that the award made by the authority was subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the petitioner's remedy for compensation lay in invoking the jurisdiction of the 1996 Act before the competent court. However, the court observed a statutory obligation for publishing a notice in two newspapers for compensation under Section 3-G of the Act, which was not fulfilled in this case. The court held that the award was in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Section 3-G, leading to a quashing of the award related to agricultural land.

As a result of the judgment, the petitioner was granted the right to file objections regarding the land and constructions standing thereon. The respondents were directed to obtain the valuation report for the constructions and inform the petitioner to file objections accordingly. The competent authority was instructed to deliver the award in compliance with Section 3-G of the Act after providing a hearing to the petitioner. The court allowed the writ petition partly, quashing the award related to compensation and setting a timeline of three months for the completion of the necessary procedures.