Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1657 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTValidity 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.
|