Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 434 (RAJ)

Santosh v. Union of India

2023-02-06

SAMEER JAIN

body2023
ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed present petition with following prayer(s):- 'i) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notification dated 9.12.10 (Annex.2), may kindly be declared arbitrary, illegal and null and void and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from acquiring the land in dispute without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. ii) in alternative, direct the respondents to allot alternative rehabilitation area for their livelihood for running cultivation at the nearby area, and iv) direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioners to erect two tube wells on their other land situated near the land Khasra No. 603, 604, 605 at village Gokulpura, Ramu Ka Bas Dist. Sikar and direct the respondents to pay compensation of construction of these two tube wells and well; v) direct the respondents to appoint arbitrator to determine the suitable and adequate compensation of the acquired land, two tube wells, well, house and temple as per the market price of the adjacent lands; and vi) in alternative, direct the respondents to not to take possession of the land of the petitioners till payment of entire adequate and suitable compensation amount of the entire land to the petitioners. Vii) direct the respondents to provide all the benefits to the petitioners contained under Chapter IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioners in its true letter and spirit; viii) In case any order prejudicing the rights of the petitioners is passed, during pendency of the writ petition the same may kindly be taken on record and may also kindly be quashed and set aside; ix) Any other order or relief as deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.' 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon prayer number 5 to submit that the petitioner has not been adequately compensated for the acquired land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon prayer number 5 to submit that the petitioner has not been adequately compensated for the acquired land. Learned counsel has submitted that in spite of categoric representations to the respondents (Annexure-8, 9 and 10), the claim of the petitioner is still not considered on merits and the hyper technical approach adopted by the respondents is defeating the objects of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Coordinate bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 19278/2013 titled as Sanwarmal Soni vs. National Highway Authority of India & Ors., the relevant part of which is reiterated below :- 'Having regard to the limited nature of controversy, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to forward the case of the petitioners to the Arbitrator in view of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, who shall pass appropriate order thereabout within one month from the date, copy of this order is produced before the respondents.' 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court in case of General Manager (Project), National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited vs. Prakash Chand Pradhan and Ors. reported in (2020) 15 SCC 533 and National Highway Authority of India vs. Sayedabad Tea Company Limited and Ors. reported in (2020) 15 SCC 161 . Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner moved the representation promptly but the same has not been considered till date. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that proper application in the prescribed form and format was not filed by the petitioner. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, considering the judgment of Apex Court cited above (supra) and relying upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sanwarmal Soni (supra), the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to forward the case of the petitioners to the Arbitrator in view of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, who shall pass appropriate order thereabout within two month from the date, copy of this order is produced before the respondents. The petitioners will be at liberty to submit a representation in addition to the present writ petition. 6 . The concerned authorities will decide the same in accordance with law and after following principles of natural justice. 7 In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.