Shobharam Dewangan vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance regarding the inadequacy of compensation, specifically concerning the application of the multiplier and differential treatment of properties, needs to be addressed through the statutory mechanism provided under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court referred to Section 3G(5) of the Act, which allows for determination by an arbitrator if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable. Since an Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as the Arbitrator, the Court directed the petitioner to raise his dispute before this authority. The Additional Commissioner is mandated to decide the matter objectively by passing a speaking order. The petitioner was given a period of two weeks to file his dispute, and the Additional Commissioner was expected to decide within 60 days of receiving the application. The issue of GST was not discussed or decided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shobharam Dewangan, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, aggrieved by the compensation awarded for the acquisition of his property for National Highway No. 200 (New No. 49). The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to apply the proper multiplier while quantifying the compensation. Furthermore, he argued that different yardsticks were applied to similar adjacent properties, resulting in arbitrary and unequal compensation for different owners. The property acquisition was carried out under the National Highways Act, 1956. The revenue respondents are the Union of India, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), State of Chhattisgarh, Collector Champa, Sub-Divisional Officer Cum Competent Authority Land Acquisition Champa, and Inspector General Registration and Superintendent of Stamp GST Bhawan Raipur.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the petitioner's property under the National Highways Act, 1956, is arbitrary and inadequate due to the improper application of a multiplier and differential treatment of similar properties? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to apply the proper multiplier in calculating the compensation and that similar adjacent properties were treated differently, leading to arbitrary and unequal compensation. Revenue's Contention: The learned ASG informed the Court that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as an Arbitrator for determining proper compensation under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. The State was represented by a Public Prosecutor.