Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2723 (RAJ)

Sushila Pathak v. Union Of India

2022-11-09

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present batch of writ petitions had been filed for similar relief and arise out of same facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. For deciding the batch of writ petitions, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6365/2022 are taken into consideration. 4. The prayers made in the present writ petitions are as follows:- "a. The respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for determination of compensation under National Highways Act, 1956; b. The respondents may kindly be directed to quash the award dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-2) in so far as it declines award of solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of Section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; c. The respondents may be directed to comply with the Guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; d. The respondents may kindly be directed to issue supplementary award to this effect within a stipulated time; e. The National Highway Authority of India must be directed to deposit the amount payable in terms of the supplementary award, in interest bearing fixed deposit account(s) in any nationalized bank which shall be disturbed to the petitioner;" 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were having the possession and ownership of the land which has been acquired by the respondents. He further submits that in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings undertaken, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Rohet, District Pali passed an award in favour of the petitioners on 17.09.2014, whereby, the compensation was determined as per the National Highways Act, 1956. Learned counsel further submits that Section 3J of National Highways Act, 1956 was declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Madras High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Ultimately, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a batch of Special Leave Petitions led by Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors. decided on 19.09.2019 upheld the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Section 3J of National Highways Act, 1956 was struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors. decided on 19.09.2019 upheld the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Section 3J of National Highways Act, 1956 was struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), the petitioners seek remedy to approach the Arbitrator as per Section 3(G)(5) of National Highways Act, 1956 by taking recourse to the arbitration proceedings assailing the validity of the award in question. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to refute the factual position argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) held as under:- "41. There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded the issue raised in these cases. This assumes importance in view of the plea of Shri Divan that the impugned judgments should be set aside on the ground that when the arbitral awards did not provide for solatium or interest, no Section 34 petition having been filed by the landowners on this score, the Division Bench judgments that are impugned before us ought not to have allowed solatium and/or interest. Ordinarily, we would have acceded to this plea, but given the fact that the Government itself is of the view that solatium and interest should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and 2015, in the interest of justice we decline to interfere with such orders, given our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 9599/2019 is dismissed." 10. Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 9599/2019 is dismissed." 10. In view of the submissions made before this Court and taking into consideration the fact that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to approach the Arbitrator as per Section 3(G)(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners shall move an appropriate application along with an application for condonation of delay before the Arbitrator within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, which shall be considered by the Arbitrator strictly in accordance with law. 11. Needless to say that the Arbitrator after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners shall decide the application so preferred by them by a speaking order strictly in accordance with law. 12. Since the matter pertains to the year 2014, therefore, it is expected from the Arbitrator that he shall conclude the arbitration proceedings at the earliest preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing the same. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.