- (1.) IN Misc.Application No.54/2013 : Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on a consideration of the averments made in the application, in order to put a quietus to the ongoing debate, the delay in filing the accompanying D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.95/2013 is condoned. The application stands allowed. In Appeal : Heard learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Though the instant appeal had been directed against the orders dated 19.12.2011 and 22.11.2012, successively in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5224/2011 and S.B.Civil Review Petition No.181/2012, in course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, on being queried by this Court, has submitted that in challenge is only the order dated 22.11.2012.
(2.) BE that as it may, facts in brief, necessary for the proposed adjudication, are that the appellant/writ petitioner had approached this Court seeking annulment of the awards dated 21.7.2010 and 22.7.2010 rendered in cases No.657/2009, 659/2009, 660/2009 and 661/2009, and a direction to the respondent No.1 to solicit claims from her afresh under Section 3G(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), and to pass an award, as contemplated, thereafter vis -a -vis her land acquired under the enactment. Her pleaded version is that she is the owner of a plot of land situated in Village Motuka, District Tonk abutting National Highway No.12. The respondents, with the intention of extending the National Highway 4/6 lane, had issued a notification dated 14.7.2009 to that effect. Subsequent thereto, by notification dated 30.10.2009 under Section 3D of the Act, it was declared that the land had vested in the Central Government. According to the petitioner, though in terms of Section 3G(3) of the Act before proceeding to determine the amount of compensation, as contemplated therein, the competent authority has to obligatorily give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which has to be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. No such notice however, was issued, and she as well, did not hand over possession of her land and structures located in khasra No.389, 390/1, 390/2, 391, 391/1 and 391/2. She has urged that inspite of such patent illegality in the process, the respondents proceeded to compute the amount of compensation, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act and issued three awards, referred to hereinabove, without ascertaining the losses incurred by her and appropriately evaluating the structures existing on the land. The learned Single Judge, by the judgment and order dated 19.12.2011, on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record as well as the relevant provisions of the Act and the impugned awards, dismissed the challenge. In doing so, the learned Single Judge noticed that in the impugned awards, there was a specific mention of the objections raised by the appellant/writ petitioner, on a consideration whereof, compensation payable to her had been determined under Section 3G of the Act. It was noticed as well that after the determination of compensation payable under Section 3G, the amount was to be deposited by the Appropriate Government with the competent authority under Section 3H, and that, if any person was aggrieved by the determination, remedy to him/her was available under Section 3H(4) of the Act. The learned Single Judge was thus, of the view that no intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted, in the face of the effective alternative remedy available to the appellant/writ petitioner.
(3.) AN application for review of this decision was filed registered as S.B.Civil Review Petition No.181/2012. Though the said application was belated, the delay was condoned. Reiterating the earlier finding that the appellant/writ petitioner had appeared before the competent authority, as was evident from the award dated 21.7.2010, registering her objection, and that, the awards had been passed thereafter by the competent authority, the application for review was rejected holding that the same did not disclose any ground for intervention.;