Sashi Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

According to the petitioner, her land was acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the purposes of construction of the National Highway-125. On 05.04.2014, a notification was made under Section 3A of the Act and thereafter the land of the petitioner was acquired and the part of the compensation was given to the petitioner but the remaining amount has not been given. Hence a dispute has been raised by the petitioner regarding the remaining compensation by filing the present writ petition before this Court with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant and pay the amount of compensation of land and amount of structure as awarded in order dated 27.10.2017 passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer Nainital/Udham Singh Nagar.

(ii) Issue any other or further writ, or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos.3 & 4, in which it has been stated that the land for which the compensation is being sought by the petitioner was never acquired by the National Highways Authority of India.

Under Section 3J of the Act, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not applicable. Section 3J of the Act reads as under:-

"3J. Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to apply.-Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act."

Sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the Act reads as under:-

(1)...

(2)....

(3)...

"(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated."

The Competent authority has been defined under Section 3 (a) of the Act, which reads as under:-

"3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.

"(a) "competent authority" means any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification;"

This Court has been apprised by the learned counsel for the National Highways Authority of India Mr. Naresh Pant that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has been appointed as a Competent Authority by the notification of the Central Government under Section 3 (a) of the Act.

In view of the above provision, the petitioner would always be at liberty to raise a dispute before the Competent Authority and if the Competent Authority comes to the conclusion that there is a dispute and is liable to be referred to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in the matter, the same is liable to be done. In other words, there is a mechanism already provided under the statute for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, which the petitioner presently seeks by means of the present writ petition.

The writ petition, is therefore, disposed of with the above observations and with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority.