Laxmi Prasad vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the grievance of the petitioners regarding inadequate compensation, specifically concerning the application of the multiplier and the differential treatment of similar properties, needs to be addressed individually. The Court referred 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. Since the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as an Arbitrator for such matters, the Court directed the petitioners to raise their individual disputes before this authority. The Additional Commissioner is to decide the matter objectively by passing a speaking order. The petitioners were directed to approach the Additional Commissioner within two weeks, and the Arbitrator was expected to decide within 60 days of receiving the applications. The Court did not decide the merits of the compensation dispute itself but facilitated the process for its resolution.

Facts

The petitioners, Laxmi Prasad and Chaituram, are aggrieved by the compensation awarded for their properties acquired for the construction of National Highway No. 200 (New No. 49). They contend that the authorities failed to apply the proper multiplier while quantifying the compensation and applied different yardsticks for similar adjacent properties, leading to arbitrary and unequal compensation. The properties were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The dispute concerns the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the acquired properties is inadequate due to the incorrect application of the multiplier, and whether the authorities applied different yardsticks for similar adjacent properties, rendering the compensation arbitrary? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate because the authorities did not apply the proper multiplier and applied different standards for adjacent, similar properties, leading to arbitrary compensation. They sought a review of the compensation amount. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents did not record specific arguments against the petitioners' claims regarding the compensation calculation. However, the Court noted that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to resolve such disputes.