MEHBUB DAUD VAID Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr.Anand J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Ms.Ayushi Thakkar, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 (National Highway Authority of India) and Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) It is the submission of Mr.Yagnik, learned advocate for the petitioner that petitioner is an agriculturist and is the owner of land bearing Block/Survey No.181/3 situated within the limits of village Dahegam, Taluka & District: Bharuch. The said land is under cultivation and he is totally dependent upon it for his livelihood. The land in question, according to Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate is not falling within the limits of any 'transitional area, smaller urban area or larger urban area' as defined and specified under Article 243Q (2) and is not part of any area falling within the limits of any Urban Local body or Municipality or Municipal Corporation and as such, the land is not covered under any urban area. According to Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate, the major economic activity is agriculture and there are no significant non agricultural activities in the village or surrounding area and the village limits of Vadodara Urban Development Area Authority, however, no T.P. Scheme is proposed in the area and the lands are still in agriculture zone. It is contended that by virtue of Notification dtd. 6/8/2013, issued by Government of India, in exercise of power under Sec. 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, the land of the petitioner was undertaken for acquisition for the purpose of construction of Vadodara - Mumbai Express way and by virtue of further Notification under Sec. 3D , published on 25/7/2014, the lands vested in respondent no.3. It is contended that for the purpose of compensation, the competent authority passed an award dtd. 28/9/2018 bearing No. NHAI/20/2013 and the market value of the acquired lands was arrived at and though the land acquired is situated in rural area, the authority i.e. respondent No.2 applied factor 1 and not factor 2. Hence, the present petition. The main grievance raised in the petition is that erroneously respondent no. 2 - authority applied factor 1 instead of factor 2.