DINESHKUMAR MANEKLAL SHAH Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG for the respondent no.3.

(2.) At the outset, Mr. Purohit has pressed this petition only for applicability of Factor-2 to be applied while finally calculating the award as the per compensation vide the judgment dtd. 12/9/2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a group of Writ Petitions led by Special Civil Application No.8734 of 2019. He has further specifically submitted that the benefit extended in Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of the said judgment may be extended and applied in the case of the present petitioner. In other matters, the earlier award needs to be revised and a fresh award needs to be given in the light of the judgment dtd. 12/9/2019 referred to above which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now the State and National Highway Authority of India are complying the same subject to fulfillment of the conditions for getting the benefit of Factor-2. However, it is more or less admitted subject to verification by the respondent - NHAI that the petitioner is and would be entitled to the benefit of Factor-2. It goes without saying that the benefit would be extended so long as the petitioner is entitled to and eligible for the same, depending upon the location. We direct that the decision to redetermine the compensation be taken in light of the judgment dtd. 12/9/2019, wherein we have also fixed eight weeks' time to the competent authority to make the award and further we have granted 21 days time to the National Highway Authority of India to make necessary deposit so that the land owners may get the benefit at the earliest.

(3.) Mr. Purohit has also sought liberty that the petitioner, if determination of rate of land by which the compensation is calculated, is not satisfied, he may have the liberty to avail the remedy available under the law for seeking enhancement. We make it clear that we are not curtailing any right of the petitioner available to him under law for claiming the highest compensation which he can get subject to availing the appropriate remedy in accordance to law and establishing his rights for higher compensation.