Prit Ram 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 use of different yardsticks for adjacent properties, needs to be addressed individually. The Court noted that Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, provides for the determination of compensation by an arbitrator if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either party. Since the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as an Arbitrator, the Court directed the petitioners to raise their individual disputes before this authority. The Additional Commissioner is expected to decide these disputes objectively by passing a speaking order. The petitioners are to approach the Additional Commissioner within two weeks, and the Arbitrator is expected to decide within 60 days of receiving the applications. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioners, Prit Ram, Narayan, and Naval Sai, 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 and used different yardsticks for adjacent properties, leading to arbitrary and unequal compensation. The properties were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners have approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the compensation determination.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the acquired properties is inadequate due to the incorrect application of the multiplier, and if so, what is the appropriate relief? (Question of law and fact, relating to the determination of compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956). 2. Whether the authorities have applied different yardsticks for similar adjacent properties, leading to arbitrary and unequal compensation? (Question of law and fact, relating to the principles of natural justice and fair compensation). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate because the authorities did not apply the proper multiplier. They also contended that the authorities applied different yardsticks for similar properties situated adjacently, resulting in arbitrary and unequal compensation for different owners. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents, including the Union of India and the National Highways Authority of India, did not explicitly record arguments regarding the merits of the compensation calculation. However, the learned ASG 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 proper compensation.