TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 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 compensatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner has challenged the award dated 30.4.2013 in relation to the land which has been constructed by the respondent-Authority under the provisions of National Highway Authority Act, 1956. A further 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. The contention, therefore, is that the acquisition deserves to be quashed and he further submits in the alternative that the procedure adopted for awarding compensation is also erroneous and in violation of principles of natural justice. On the issue of award of compensation he submits that two awards cannot be made, one which has been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India, Writ Petition No.6963 of 2012, decided on 7.2.2012 on this contention. The judgement in Union of India Vs. Kushala Shetty and others, 2011 (12) SCC Page 69 does not come to the aid of the petitioner on the facts of the present case. The main issue relating to the demand of compensation by the petitioner has to be considered. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, has urged that the award made by the authority is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in such circumstances once an award has been made under Section 3-G of the Act then the remedy of the petitioner in respect of compensation is to invoke the jurisdiction of the 1996 Act before the competent court. He, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and we are supported in our view by the law pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in 1998 (8) SCC Page 1. 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 al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
