NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are being decided together as identical issues on similar facts arise for consideration therein. For brevity, the facts are being referred to from CR No.2891 of 2025, which has been filed for setting aside orders dtd. 17/1/2025, 15/2/2025, 19/3/2025 and 29/4/2025, Annexures P-1 to P-4, respectively, whereby the Executing Court/Additional District Judge, Amritsar, has dismissed the objections of petitioner/National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)/judgment debtor, directing it to pay balance amount of compensation as per calculation sheet submitted by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate (CALA-cum-SDM), Amritsar-I, forthwith.

(2.) To refer to the relevant facts, the petitioner/NHAI acquired land of the private respondents/land owners for construction of a national highway (NH-15) in village Verka under Sec. 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1956 Act'), vide notification dtd. 23/5/2008 and, thereafter, notification under Sec. 3D(1) of the Act was issued on 13/5/2009. The competent authority/CALA, Amritsar-I, delivered an award, dtd. 31/5/2010, awarding compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.8926.00 per square yard along with benefit under Sec. 3G(2) of the 1956 Act, i.e., ten per cent easement amount of the basic rate.

(3.) In this factual background, Mr. Madan, learned counsel for the petitioner/NHAI has contended that the Executing Court has wrongly held that benefit under Sec. 3G(2) of the 1956 Act is payable as statutory benefit. The same was never accepted as a statutory benefit by the petitioner, nor were the land owners awarded ten per cent easement amount under Sec. 3G(2) of the Act by this Court vide order dtd. 20/12/2017. The statutory benefits awarded to the respondents/land owners only pertain to the benefits admissible under Ss. 23(2), (1-A) and 28 of the 1894 Act, which are payable solely on the basis of compensation assessed by the competent authority, without the need of recording any specific finding to that effect. Secondly, in appeal filed by the respondents/land owners, the arbitral award was set aside by this Court vide order dtd. 19/5/2016, and they were only held entitled to statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. The compensation payable to the land owners, including ten per cent easement amount, in terms of the amount determined by CALA, vide award dtd. 31/5/2010, already stands paid. The said award is no longer in existence and has merged with the subsequent final order, dtd. 20/12/2017, passed by this Court. The execution in question only pertains to the compensation awarded in terms of this order. Since the benefit of easement amount has not been granted to the respondents/land owners by this Court by recording any finding to that effect, the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to direct the NHAI to deposit the same. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the law laid down in Tarsem Singh case (supra) in this regard, and contended that easement amount under Sec. 3G(2) of the 1956 Act can only be awarded to a person other than the land owner, having rights as a tenant or licensee over the land acquired under the 1956 Act. The respondents are owners of the land undisputedly, and accordingly they are not entitled to claim easement amount.