Ramawtar Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the acquisition of properties in question is governed by the National Highways Act, 1956. It noted that Section 3G(5) of the Act provides a mechanism for arbitration if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either party. The Court found that the petitioners' grievances regarding the inadequacy and arbitrariness of the compensation, particularly concerning the multipliers and valuation parameters used, necessitate individual adjudication. Therefore, the Court directed all petitioners to raise their disputes individually before the Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the Act. The Arbitrator is expected to consider previous judgments of the High Court, including Division Bench decisions, and other relevant guidelines for quantifying compensation, and to pass a speaking order. The Court also directed the respondents to assist the petitioners in the appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitions were disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioners in WPC No. 3152 of 2020 and WPC No. 668 of 2021 are landowners whose properties were acquired for National Highway projects. The petitioner in WPC No. 3152 of 2020 alleges receiving inadequate compensation for their land in Village Pendridih, Bilaspur, citing a lower rate for a larger area compared to a smaller area awarded to others. Similarly, the petitioners in WPC No. 668 of 2021 claim disparate compensation rates for their lands in Village Seoni, Janjgir-Champa, due to different valuation parameters and multipliers applied by the authorities. Both sets of petitioners contend that the compensation awarded is arbitrary and that the authorities have not applied proper multipliers or consistent yardsticks for similar properties. The grievance is that the compensation chart shows a higher rate for smaller land parcels and a lower rate for larger ones.

Key Issues

1. Whether the compensation awarded for the acquired lands is inadequate and arbitrary, violating the principles of fair compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956, particularly concerning the application of multipliers and valuation parameters? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argue that the compensation awarded is inadequate because the authorities failed to apply proper multipliers and used different yardsticks for adjacent properties, leading to arbitrary and unequal compensation for similar lands. They contend that this disparity, where smaller land parcels receive higher compensation than larger ones, is demonstrably unfair. Respondent's (NHAI) Argument: The respondent (NHAI) contends that an efficacious alternative remedy exists for the petitioners under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which allows for arbitration. They cite previous High Court and Division Bench judgments that have relegated similar petitioners to the arbitration process, even in cases of alleged arbitrariness, viewing the alternate remedy as a rule of convenience unless special circumstances or per se illegality is proven.