NH Act: Land Acquisition Act 2013 Applicable Where Compensation Deposited Before Dec 31, 2014, But Not Paid To Majority: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, would apply to cases of land acquisition, under National Highways Act 1956, where agencies deposited the compensation amount prior to December 31, 2014 with the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) but the same was not paid to the majority of the acquired land holders. Justice Avneesh Jhingan also observed that in a situation where the compensation amount is challenged and an arbitration is preferred on behalf of the landowners who are farmers, It would be desirable if the arbitrators record reasons, making evident as to how the material available was dealt with. “Majority of the persons affected are the farmers and rustic villagers who would be able to make out as to whether just compensation has been awarded for land acquired or not In the case in hand, the acquisition was of 2012, the arbitral award was passed in March 2019, an earnest effort should be made by the arbitrator to conclude the matter expeditiously. The delay deprives the land owners (most of them being farmers) of the just compensation,” said the court.The CaseThe NHAI and land owners had filed appeals before the court under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the case wherein the acquisition of the land was done in 2012, the arbitral award was passed in 2019 and a modification order to the arbitral award was passed in 2021. A notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 was issued on 25.5.2012, proposing to acquire lands of twenty five villages on National Highway No.64 (Patiala-Sangrur-Bathinda stretch). The notification under Section 3-D of the 1956 Act was issued on 3.5.2013. Thereafter, CALA on 15.1.2014 relying upon the prices fixed by the Price Fixation Committee determined the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the decision of CALA, the arbitration was initiated at the instance of land owners. The proceedings culminated in an award dated 27.3.2019. The NHAI as well as landowners thereafter raised objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act which was dismissed on 29.10.2021. However, the award was modified to the extent that the amount of severance will be paid on market value of acquired land and not on value of the unacquired land. Arguments The counsel appearing on behalf of NHAI submitted that the provisions of 2013 Act would not apply to the acquisition in question because conditions in clause 4.6 (iii)(a) and (b) of the guidelines dated 28.12.2017 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways were complied with by NHAI. It was also argued that prior to 31.12.2014, full amount of the award was deposited. The guidelines in question were issued in respect of cases where land acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the NH Act, 1956. It was further contended that market value was to be determined as per the provisions of 3G(7) of the 1956 Act and that other provisions of the 2013 Act could not be made applicable.The NHAI also said the modification of the award was without jurisdiction. The counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners countered by stating that the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. Tarsem Singh and others, 2019(9) SCC 304 has already decided that the 2013 Act would be applicable to the land acquired under the 1956 Act. He submitted that as on 31.12.2014, the compensation was not paid to the majority of land holdings under acquisition. While refuting the claim that clause 4.6(iii)(a) and (b) of the guidelines were followed, he further contended that the acquisition in question is covered under sub-clause (a) of clause 4.6 (iii) as the amount awarded was not paid to the majority of the land holdings, even though it was deposited with the CALA. The landowners also defended the award stating that the arbitrator has taken into consideration the relevant factors as per First Schedule of the 2013 Act. On instructions, the counsel representing landowners also submitted that they are not against the modified relief granted under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and the arbitral award be sustained. Verdict While briefly outlining the facts of the case, the bench pointed out the purpose of the 2013 Act. It said, “The 2013 Act was enacted with the object to address the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement of the persons and families affected by land acquisition…. A balance was sought to be achieved between the land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement as these were two sides of the same coin…Scientific method for calculation of market value was proposed for ensuring comprehensive package. The benefit of the new law was extended to all cases under the 1894 Act where the award was not passed or possession of land not taken.” “There is no dispute that from 1.1.2015 the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act were made applicable to the land acquired under the ...

NH Act: Land Acquisition Act 2013 Applicable Where Compensation Deposited Before Dec 31, 2014, But Not Paid To Majority: Punjab & Haryana HC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

NH Act: Land Acquisition Act 2013 Applicable Where Compensation Deposited Before Dec 31, 2014, But Not Paid To Majority: Punjab & Haryana HC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers