SHERLA RAMULU Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the owners of land in Sy. Nos. 172 and 173 of rameshwarpally village of Kamareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District, which is abutting the National Highway No. 7. The National Highways Authority of India, the 1st respondent herein, has undertaken widening of the highway. A notification, dated 27. 4. 2005, under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") was published, proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners and other adjoining lands. The petitioners raised an objection, and thereafter, the award enquiry was taken up, as provided for under Section 3-G of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, the 2nd respondent herein, is designated as the competent authority to pass award. The petitioners submitted the particulars of comparable sales and made a claim at the rate of rs. 2,000/- per sq. yard. According to them, their land was already part of the lay out, abutting Kamareddy town, and plots were also sold.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent passed an award dated 12. 1. 2007. He observed that though according to comparable sales, the market value of the land of the petitioners determined at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard, the Joint Collector, nizamabad, did not approve of it, and accordingly, awarded the compensation, at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. It appears that he has also awarded solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12%. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the award passed by the 2nd respondent in every aspect. They contend, that under the Act, there is no provision for requiring the 2nd respondent to seek approval of any authority, before determining the market value, and though the record discloses that an extent of Acs. 2-08 gts. of land was acquired, the compensation was restricted to ac. 1-37 gts. Certain other contentions are also urged. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, admitting the factum of acquisition of the land of the petitioners. It is stated that the award was passed by 2nd respondent, in accordance with law, and that in case, the petitioners are not satisfied with the award, they have to seek remedy under sub-section (5) of Section 3-G of the Act.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit, supporting the award passed by him. He reiterated the fact that though he arrived at the conclusion that the market value is at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard, he had awarded a different amount, in view of the instructions received from the Joint Collector. It is also stated that he awarded solatium and additional market value, comparable to the one under the Land Acquisition Act.