Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2300 of 2013 ====================================================== Md. Shakil Ahmad Son of Late Md. Shaukat Ali Resident of Village - Shobhan (Dalour), P.S. Simri, District Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry Of Surface, Transport and National Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi 2. The Secretary, Ministry Of Surface, Transport and National Highway, Government of India, New Delhi 3. The Chairman, National Highway Authority Of India, Plot No. G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 4. The Chief General Manager-Cum-Regional Officer, National Highway
Legal Reasoning
Authority Of India, D-63, First Floor, Srikrishnapuri, Patna - 800001 5. The Project Director, Office Of National Highway Authority Of India ,
Legal Reasoning
C/O Shri S.N. Mishra, Professor Colony, Dighee West, Darbhanga - 846004 6. The State Of Bihar 7. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Land Reforms (Land Acquisition), Government Of Bihar, Patna 8. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar For the State : Mr. Krishna Chandra, AC to AAG For NHAI : M/s. Ranjan Kr. Singh & Sunil Kumar-II ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.2300 of 2013 (5) dt.21-06-2013 2 / 6 5 21-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the State and for the National Highway Authority of India. The petitioner’s grievance relates to payment of compensation to the petitioner in relation to the land acquired by the respondent-National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in terms of the Bihar Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. The stand of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the lands appertaining to Khesara No. 2206 and 2207 measuring 0.045 Hectare and 0.130 Hectare. The ownership of the petitioner was not in dispute but the nature of the land and quantum of compensation is being disputed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the nature of the land is concerned, a Six-member Committee is constituted by the NHAI to decide the same and the petitioner would be applying before the said Committee for determining the nature of the land. With regard to the area of the land, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have shown the same as 0.28 hectare and 0.070 hectare whereas the actual area after the previous acquisition 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.2300 of 2013 (5) dt.21-06-2013 3 / 6 under Section 3D of the NHAI Act, would come in Plot No. 2206 to 0.029 hectare instead of 0.02 hectare and 0.110 hectare instead of 0.070 with respect to plot No. 2207. He also submits that the statement that the land was earlier measured in the presence of the petitioner is not correct as there is no signature of the petitioner on the said measurement and the respondents should be directed to make the measurement in the presence of the petitioner. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to be paid compensation for the said land in terms of the Consent Policy of the State Government which entitles the petitioner to obtain a higher compensation than as paid otherwise. Learned counsel for the NHAI does not oppose the stand of the petitioner so far as the reference of his matter before the Six-member Committee is concerned with regard to the nature of the land. Learned counsel however, submits that as per the report dated 22.6.2011 of the Anchal Amin addressed to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Darbhanga, the measurement has been taken in the presence of the petitioner. He is however, unable to show that any signature of the petitioner was taken to 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.2300 of 2013 (5) dt.21-06-2013 4 / 6 corroborate the correctness of the said statement made in the report of the Amin. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the NHAI submits that the same has to be paid as per the prevailing rate in the locality with respect to the missing plot of land but he is unable to explain the contradiction in paras 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit which first talks of the land of the petitioner having been acquired under Consent Policy of NHAI but subsequently states that plot in question falls under the ROW (Right of Way), without explaining the actual purport of the said term, and goes on to assert that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation either under the NHAI Act or under the relevant policy of the State of Bihar. The said stand however, is contrary to what is stated in para-8 of the counter affidavit that as per the policy of the NHAI the missing plots are taken under Consent Policy and payments are made by the NHAI on the prevailing rate of the locality which is determined by the Registration Department of the Government of Bihar. However, it is evident from the notice dated 9.12.2011 published by the Project Director, National Highway Authority that compensation would be granted for the said extra 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.2300 of 2013 (5) dt.21-06-2013 5 / 6 land including 0.028 and 0.070 hectares of plot nos. 2206 and 2207 falling under the area of acquisition. In my view, once the lands of the petitioner are taken and it is asserted in para-8 of the counter affidavit that such missing plots had fallen under the Consent Policy of NHAI and the payment of the same has to be made in terms of the Consent Policy, then the notification aforesaid of the State Government clearly state that there is no variation in the principles of payment of compensation with respect to any acquisition made for any purpose whatsoever. So far as the nature of the land is concerned, the petitioner may approach the Six-member Committee for decision on the same. It is also directed that on approaching the Six- member Committee by the petitioner, the Six-member Committee shall examine the contradiction as claimed by the petitioner over the said plots of land. So far as the area of the land is concerned, this Court directs the respondent-NHAI to ensure that the measurement of the land of the petitioner is made in the presence of the petitioner by a competent Amin so as to determine the actual area of land which has been acquired. So far as the compensation with respect to 0.016 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.2300 of 2013 (5) dt.21-06-2013 6 / 6 hectare land of plot no. 2206 is concerned, it is the stand of the respondents that a cheque dated 29.12.2011 for Rs. 30,808/- was prepared but the petitioner did not turn up to receive the payment of the same. Let the authorities prepare a fresh cheque which, on the petitioner’s approaching, shall be handed over to him. At this stage it is submitted by learned counsel for the NHAI that the petitioner has not approached the authorities for the execution of the sale deed in favour of the President of India in order to become entitled to compensation. The petitioner is directed to do so. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. S.Pandey/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)