2019 (9) TMI 1699 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of award - determination of compensation - land acquired without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners land acquired, that too without determining the adequate compensation for the land of the petitioners - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - From a simple reading of Sections 3D and 3G of the Act, 1956 it is evident that the purposes of publication of the notice in both the sections i.e. Sections 3D and 3G are entirely different. Under Section 3D there is a declaration of acquisition and after the notification is made in the official gazette, the land vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. After acquiring the land, the next step is determination of compensation. Section 3G(3) again requires that before proceeding to determine the compensation, the competent authority shall give a public notice in two local newspapers, one in vernacular language, inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. Sub-section (4) of Section 3G clearly provides that the notice shall give the particulars of the land and an opportunity is to be afforded to the land owner to appear in person or by his agent or by a legal practitioner before the competent authority before determining the compensation. The scheme of the amendment brought by the Act 16 of 1997, whereby Sections 3A to 3J have been inserted in the Act, 1956, clearly shows that the notification has to be published at three stages first, under Section 3A(2) declaring intention to acquire the land and inviting objections; secondly, under Section 3D(2) for declaration to the effect that the land should be acquired and on such declaration the land vests absolutely in the Central Government; and thirdly, under Section 3G(3) a public notice is required to be published in two local newspapers inviting the claims from all the persons interested in the land - It is admitted case that only two notices have been published under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act, 1956. No other notice has been brought on the record by the authorities along with the counter affidavit. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHARDA YADAV VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. 2014 (7) TMI 1378 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has considered the similar facts. In that case also, the notice under Section 3G was not issued. The Court held that 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. The facts of this case are squarely covered by the law laid down by the co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in Sharda Yadav. Similar argument was raised in that case also that notice under Section 3D be treated as notice under Section 3G. In the present case, it is admitted case of the respondents that by mistake in the notice under Section 3G(3), Section 3D was mentioned but no corrigendum has been issued. Moreover, the respondents have not brought on the record the notice dated 29th April, 2018 in spite of filing a supplementary counter affidavit. The award dated 19th September, 2018 passed by the second respondent under Section 3G of the Act, 1956 has been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956, hence it is quashed to the said extent - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the award dated 19th September 2018 under the National Highways Act, 1956.
2. Adequacy and determination of compensation for the acquired land.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Award:
The petitioners challenged the award dated 19th September 2018, claiming it was issued without following due process under the National Highways Act, 1956. Specifically, the petitioners argued that the respondents failed to publish a notice under Section 3G(3) inviting objections before determining compensation. The court found that the respondents had mistakenly published the notice under Section 3D instead of Section 3G(3), and no corrigendum was issued to correct this error. The court held that this procedural lapse rendered the award invalid.

2. Adequacy and Determination of Compensation:
The petitioners contended that the compensation awarded was grossly inadequate, arguing that their land was treated as agricultural despite evidence of its non-agricultural use, including the existence of a permanent structure. They claimed that the compensation rate of Rs. 218 per square meter was significantly lower than the circle rate of Rs. 6,500 per square meter. The court noted that the respondents did not adequately address these concerns in their counter-affidavit and failed to provide a clear and specific reply regarding the publication of the notice under Section 3G(3).

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the notice under Section 3G(3), which requires the competent authority to publish a public notice in two local newspapers, one in vernacular language, inviting claims from interested persons. The court found that the respondents did not comply with this requirement, as the notice was incorrectly issued under Section 3D. The court referenced a similar case, Sharda Yadav v. Union of India, where the failure to publish a notice under Section 3G(3) was deemed a violation of natural justice and statutory provisions.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the award dated 19th September 2018 was issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 3G(3) and thus quashed it. The petitioners were granted liberty to file objections in terms of Section 3G(3) before the competent authority, which was directed to consider the objections and pass a new award in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity for a hearing. The entire process was to be completed expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of the court's order. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.