VISHNU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the award passed by the respondent No.2/Project Director, Bhartiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Pariyojana Karyanwayan, EKAE dtd. 5/9/2013, to the extent it affects the present petitioner. Dr. Swapnil Tawshikar, learned counsel for the petitioner claims, that the petitioner is the owner of Survey No.36/2, situated at Village Turori, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, whose land to the extent of 0.14 R. out of the above Survey No.36/2, was affected by road widening of the National Highway No.9 (New No.65), however the award which has been passed on 5/9/2013, grants compensation for the area admeasuring 0.01 R. of land instead of 0.14 R. It is thus submitted, that the award to the above extent, is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondent No.3 is statutorily bound to pass a fresh award, in respect of the balance land. Learned counsel invites our attention, to the communication dtd. 17/7/2009, of the Competent Authority, in which it is admitted, that as per the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent Land Record, Omerga, the acquired area, has been incorrectly shown as 100 sq.mtr. instead of 1038 sq.mtr. It further shows that compensation for 100 sq.mtr., has already been received by the petitioner and compensation for balance area of 938 sq.mtr. is to be paid. Mr. Swapnil Tawshikar therefore submits, that even otherwise presuming the correctness of this communication dtd. 17/7/2019, compensation for the balance area of 938 sq. mtr., is admittedly not paid, which is required to be paid.

(2.) Mr. A.B. Dhongale learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 3, invites our attention to the submissions filed on record on behalf of the respondent No.3 to contend, that there were different joint measurement reports by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Omerga, in respect of the extent of land of the petitioner, which was under acquisition and therefore, by communication dtd. 3/4/2019, a final joint measurement report was sought which has been submitted on 20/5/2021, which indicates, that the extent of area affected by the project, was 1038 sq. mtrs. out of Survey No.36/2 and not 0.14 R. A copy of the report has been placed on record by the respondent No. 3, as Annexure R-1, which confirms the above position.

(3.) Though Dr. Swapnil Tawshikar learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argues, that land to the extent of 0.14 HR out of entire land of Survey No.36/2 is affected, that is a question of fact, which a writ court cannot go into. That apart, the table of joint measurements placed on record by the respondent No.3 along with the communication dtd. 20/5/2019 at Annexure R-1, indicates, that though at one point of time, the extent of land affected by the acquisition in respect of the petitioner, was shown as 1400 sq. mtrs., however, the final measurement shows it to be 1038 sq. mtrs. and the same shall have to be considered as the correct measurement as it has been jointly done. Admittedly, the petitioner has been paid compensation in respect of 100 sq. mtrs. of land, out of the land of Survey No.36/2 and thus what is payable would be compensation to the extent of 1038 - 100 = 938 sq. mtrs.