VIJAY BISHNOI, J. - (1.) Learned counsels for the parties have submitted that the controversy involved in these writ petitions are squarely covered by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Man Singh and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors. decided on 27.03.2017. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Man Singh (supra) has passed the following decision :- "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 2013").
(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioners' land was acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). 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.;