Mini Bai Kanwar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the grievance of the petitioners regarding inadequate compensation, specifically concerning the application of multipliers and the differential treatment of similar properties, requires individual adjudication. The Court noted that Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, provides for 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 the Arbitrator for determining proper compensation, the Court directed the petitioners to raise their individual disputes before this authority. The Additional Commissioner is expected to decide each case objectively by passing a speaking order. The petitioners were given a period of two weeks to file their applications, and the Additional Commissioner was directed to decide the matters at the earliest, preferably within 60 days from the receipt of the applications. The Court did not decide the merits of the compensation claims but facilitated the process for their resolution.

Facts

The petitioners, thirteen individuals residing in Masaniyakala, Tehsil Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. Their grievance stemmed from the compensation awarded for the acquisition of their properties for the construction of National Highway No. 200 (New No. 49). The petitioners contended that the authorities failed to apply the proper multiplier in quantifying the compensation and that different yardsticks were applied to similar adjacent properties, resulting in arbitrary and unequal compensation rates for different owners. The properties were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the petitioners' properties is inadequate due to the incorrect application of multipliers, as per Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956? 2. Whether the authorities applied different yardsticks for similar adjacent properties, leading to arbitrary and unequal compensation, contrary to principles of fairness and equity? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the compensation was inadequate because the authorities did not apply the proper multiplier. They also contended that the authorities applied different standards to similar properties located next to each other, resulting in disparate compensation amounts for different owners, which they deemed arbitrary. They relied on the principle that similar properties should receive similar compensation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and State of Chhattisgarh). However, it notes that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as an Arbitrator to determine compensation under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.