Ratan Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance regarding the inadequacy of compensation, specifically concerning the application of multipliers and differential yardsticks, is a matter that needs to be addressed by the Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court noted that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as the Arbitrator. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Additional Commissioner within two weeks. It was expected that the Additional Commissioner would consider the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh and other relevant guidelines and parameters for quantifying compensation. The Arbitrator was further directed to decide the matter objectively by passing a speaking order within 60 days of receiving the petitioner's application. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, Ratan Kumar, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, aggrieved by the compensation awarded for the acquisition of his properties for the construction of National Highway No. 130. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to apply the proper multiplier while quantifying the compensation and applied different yardsticks for similar adjacent properties, leading to arbitrary compensation rates for different owners. The properties were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The respondent authorities informed the court that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act to determine compensation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the petitioner's properties is arbitrary and inadequate due to the improper application of multipliers and differential yardsticks for similar properties, thereby violating principles of natural justice and fairness? Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the authorities have not applied the proper multiplier while quantifying the compensation. Further, different yardsticks were applied to similar properties lying adjacent to each other, resulting in arbitrary and differential compensation rates for different owners. Respondents (Union of India and State of Chhattisgarh): Informed the Court that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to determine the proper compensation. No specific argument was recorded regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim on compensation calculation.