The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a 2017 land acquisition award passed for acquisition of land in Bathinda after finding that landowners were granted compensation nearly one-sixth of the amount awarded earlier for similarly situated land acquired for the same National Highway project.
Justice Harkesh Manuja allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by landowners from Village Gill Patti, Bathinda, challenging the award dated September 18, 2017 passed by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under the National Highways Act, 1956.
The petitioners pointed out that land from the same revenue estate had earlier been acquired in 2014 for widening of NH-15 (now NH-54), for which compensation had been fixed at ₹17,851.20 per square yard. However, under the subsequent “supplementary” acquisition proceedings initiated in 2016-17 for the same project, compensation was reduced to ₹2,870 per square yard.
The High Court held that both acquisitions related to the same residential land, same village, and same public purpose widening of the National Highway and therefore the subsequent award ought to have been treated as part of the earlier parent award.
The Court observed that the later acquisition became necessary only because certain land parcels had been left out earlier due to errors in calculation by the authorities.
Rejecting the National Highways Authority of India’s reliance on Explanation 3 to Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Court held that the bar on considering earlier compensation awards applied only to awards passed under the 2013 Act and not to awards made under the National Highways Act.
The Court also found fault with the manner in which compensation was determined, observing that CALA had effectively delegated its statutory duty to a committee comprising revenue officials and engineers without independently applying its mind.
Holding the award to be arbitrary and discriminatory, the Court remarked:
“Once, the then CALA had awarded a particular amount for their lands to the petitioners under the parent award, respondent No. 3/CALA could not have awarded amount lower than that already awarded.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the 2017 award and corrigenda and held the petitioners entitled to compensation at the same rate awarded under the 2014 parent award, along with 100% solatium, interest, and interest on solatium in terms of recent Supreme Court rulings.
Appearances
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Shourya Arora, Advocate (CWP-2187-2018)
Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate ( CWP-2567-2018)
Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate with Mr. Satinderpal Singh Dhanesar, Advocate and Mr. Jashandeep Singh Bains, Advocate (CWP-915-2018)
For Respondents/NHAI : Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate
