1. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in this writ petition has been finally decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
the matter of Man Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13114/2016, decided on 27.03.2017), wherein this Court has
held as under:-
“1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to re-determine the amount of compensation and other
benefits awarded by the competent authority for the land acquired, while complying with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act of 2013â€).
2. The facts relevant are that the petitioners’ land was acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the Act of
1956â€). The competent authority determined the compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 3G of the Act of the Act of 1956. Precisely, the
grievance of the petitioners is that the award in question having been passed by the competent authority after 31.12.14 by virtue of sub-section(3) of
Section 105 inserted vide the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2014, re-incorporated vide the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, promulgated by the President of the Republic of India, the determination of the compensation was required to
be made in accordance with the provisions contained in First Schedule of the Act of 2013 whereas, the compensation has been determined by the
competent authority keeping in view the provisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956.
3. It is not disputed by the counsels appearing for the Union of India and the National Highway Authority before this court that by virtue of provisions
of sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the Act of 2013 in force at the relevant time, the competent authority was required to determine the compensation
payable to the petitioners for the land acquired, taking into consideration the components as set out in the First Schedule of the Act of 2013.
4. As a matter of fact, the issue regarding applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2013 for determination of compensation in cases where land
acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1956 but, award has not been declared till 31st of December, 2014, was considered by the
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and vide circular dated 3rd of February, 2016, while accepting the legal opinion tendered by Additional
Solicitor General of India, it has been clarified that even where the award of compensation under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 was declared by
competent authority on or before 31st of December,2014 but compensation in respect of majority of the land area notified in the relevant 3A
notification was not deposited in the account of beneficiaries on or before 31st of December, 2014, all the beneficiaries shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013.
5. It is not disputed that in the instant case, the award has been passed after 31.12.14 and therefore, even otherwise, as per the categorical stand
taken by the Union of India and the National Highways Authority by virtue of provisions of subsection (3) of Section 105 of the Act of 2013 in force
at the relevant time, the compensation payable to the petitioners for the land acquired has to be re-determined as per the provisions of the Act of 2013.
6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to re-determine the amount of compensation payable
to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.â€
2. It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that the award has been passed after 31.12.2014 and therefore, the controversy is squarely governed by
the decision referred above.
3. In view of the above submissions, admitted factual and legal scenario, this writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 27.03.2017
passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Man Singh’s case (supra). In case, any rival claims are received for the amount of compensation,
the competent authority shall objectively consider the same before directing disbursal of the amount, as per law.
