GULREJ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners claim to be the owners of land which was acquired for the purpose of construction of a National Highway under the National Highways Act, 1956. It is the grievance of the petitioners that vide Annexure P/3 on 26.8.2014 the Land Acquisition Officer had issued directions for initiating proceedings under Sec. 3(A) and 3(D) of the National Highways Act for determination and declaration of compensation and in spite of valuation report submitted by the competent authority as has been filed, it is stated that no action has been taken for determination of compensation. Prayer made is that in accordance to the valuation report submitted, compensation be determined and paid to the petitioners. By filing I.A. No. 6199/2016 an order passed on 2.5.2016 in W.P. No. 6064/2016 is brought to our notice to say that identical directions be issued and compensation be directed to be determined in accordance to the valuation report.

(2.) Shri K.N. Pethia, learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority and Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State points out that in this case no claim has been made by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer or the competent statutory authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, for determination of compensation, no award has been passed and without there being any award, the direction issued cannot be granted. They submitted that in W.P. No. 6064/2016 proceedings were held before the Sub Divisional Officer for assessment of compensation.

(3.) Having considered the submissions, we find that there is no material available on record in the present case to indicate as to whether any claim was filed before the Statutory Competent Authority and whether Competent Authority has issued any direction for valuation of property and calling for report from the Valuer for assessment of compensation. In the absence of all these facts being available on record, it is not appropriate for us to direct for payment of compensation. Instead interest of justice would be met in case petitioners are directed to raise their claim before the Competent Authority in accordance to the statute and Competent Authority directed to consider and decide the claim for payment of compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law.