Kheduram vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the grievance of the petitioners regarding the inadequacy of compensation, specifically concerning the application of multipliers and differing yardsticks for similar properties, is a matter that requires individual adjudication. Referring to Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides for determination of compensation by an arbitrator if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable, the Court noted that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as such an arbitrator. The Court reasoned that since there are multiple petitioners with properties situated at different locations, their disputes need to be dealt with individually. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioners to raise their individual disputes before the Additional Commissioner, acting as an arbitrator, in accordance with the law. The Additional Commissioner is to decide these disputes objectively by passing a speaking order. The petitioners are to approach the Additional Commissioner within two weeks, and the Commissioner is expected to decide within 60 days of receiving the applications. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioners, seven individuals, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, aggrieved by the compensation awarded for the acquisition of their properties for the construction of National Highway No. 200 (New No. 49). Their grievance was that the authorities had not applied the proper multiplier while quantifying the compensation and had applied different yardsticks for similar adjacent properties, leading to arbitrary differences in compensation rates among owners. The properties were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The revenue authorities involved were the Union of India, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), State of Chhattisgarh, Collector Bilaspur, Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Competent Authority Land Acquisition Officer Bilaspur, and Inspector General Registration and Superintendent of Stamp GST Bhawan Raipur.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the acquisition of properties under the National Highways Act, 1956, is arbitrary due to the alleged improper application of a multiplier and differing yardsticks for similar properties? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate because the authorities failed to apply the proper multiplier and used inconsistent methods for valuing similar adjacent properties, resulting in arbitrary disparities in compensation. They sought a review of the compensation calculation. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) informed the Court that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as an Arbitrator to determine proper compensation under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The respondents did not otherwise contest the petitioners' claims on merits but indicated the availability of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.