VIKRAM VISHNOI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions arise out of a common judgment of the Division Bench dtd. 5/2/2022. The writ petitions were filed by these review petitioners. Their lands were acquired by the national highway authority under Sec. 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the purpose of four laning of the national highway. The petitioners had grievance regarding compensation awarded for acquisition of such lands which was determined by the competent authority in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') by applying the multiplier as declared by the State Government under a notification dtd. 14/6/2016 in which multiplying factor between 1.25 to 2 has been specified for rural areas depending on the distance of the land from the nearest urban area. The writ petitions were dismissed by the judgment under review. Various arguments were raised particularly with respect to fixation of such multiplying factors by the State Government and how in the opinion of the petitioners such determination was arbitrary.

(2.) These review petitions are filed only to raise an additional contention that the multiplying factor of 2 announced by the Central Government under the notification dtd. 9/2/2016 should have been applied. Though such contention was not raised during the course of oral arguments, being a pure question of law, we do not shut out such argument even in these review petitions. However, we do not think that this contention would, in any case, change the ultimate decision in the writ petitions. The term 'appropriate Government' has been defined under Sec. 3(e) of the Act of 2013, which reads as under:

(3.) As provided in Clause (i) of Sec. 3(e), 'appropriate Government' in relation to the acquisition of land situated within the territory of a State means the State Government. As provided in Clause (ii), in relation to acquisition of land situated within the Union territory, the 'appropriate Government' would be the Central Government. As provided in Clause (iv), in relation to acquisition of land for public purpose in more than one State, the Central Government would be the 'appropriate Government' to act in consultation with the concerned State Governments or the Union territories. Clause (v) of Sec. 3(e) would have to be seen in light of these forgoing provisions. Clause (v) provides that an 'appropriate Government' means in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of Union as may be specified by notification, the Central Government. Therefore, for the Clause (v) of Sec. 3(e) to be applicable in relation to any land, the acquisition thereof has to be for the purpose of Union which has to be specified by the notification. Until and unless these conditions are satisfied, Sec. 3(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 would not be applicable. In such a situation, as provided in Clause (i) the land being situated within the State, in relation to acquisition of such land the appropriate Government would be the State Government.