CHATURBHAI BABALDAS PATEL Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Ms. Khyati A. Chaugh, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (National Highway Authority of India), and Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General 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 learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is jointly holding a Non-agricultural land admeasuring 6374 Ha. RA. Sq. Mtrs., bearing Survey No.52 at Village Fazalpur, Taluka Vadodara (Rural), District Vadodara. The land in question according to learned advocate for the petitioner 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 learned advocate for the petitioner, the major economic activity is agriculture and there are no significant non-agriculture activities in the village or surrounding area and the village limits of Vadodara Urban Development Authority, however, no T.P. Scheme is proposed in the area and the land is still in agriculture zone. It is contended that by virtue of Notification dtd. 3/3/2014, issued by the 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 5/3/3015, the land vested in respondent No.3. It is contended that for the purpose of compensation, the competent authority passed an award on 28/6/2017, bearing No. LAQ/Vadodara-Mumbai Express Way/Fazalpur Compensation Case No.9/ 2013 and the market value of the acquired land was arrived at and though the acquired land 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.