Invalidity of National Highways Act award due to procedural lapses; compensation inadequate; award quashed; new assessment directed within 4 months

The court found the award issued under the National Highways Act, 1956 to be invalid due to procedural lapses, specifically the incorrect publication of a notice under Section 3G(3). The compensation awarded was deemed inadequate, with discrepancies in land classification and valuation. The court quashed the award, allowing the petitioners to file objections and directing a new assessment within four months, emphasizing compliance with statutory procedures. The writ petition was granted without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the award dated 19th September 2018 under the National Highways Act, 1956.
2. Adequacy and determination of compensation for the acquired land.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Award:
The petitioners challenged the award dated 19th September 2018, claiming it was issued without following due process under the National Highways Act, 1956. Specifically, the petitioners argued that the respondents failed to publish a notice under Section 3G(3) inviting objections before determining compensation. The court found that the respondents had mistakenly published the notice under Section 3D instead of Section 3G(3), and no corrigendum was issued to correct this error. The court held that this procedural lapse rendered the award invalid.

2. Adequacy and Determination of Compensation:
The petitioners contended that the compensation awarded was grossly inadequate, arguing that their land was treated as agricultural despite evidence of its non-agricultural use, including the existence of a permanent structure. They claimed that the compensation rate of Rs. 218 per square meter was significantly lower than the circle rate of Rs. 6,500 per square meter. The court noted that the respondents did not adequately address these concerns in their counter-affidavit and failed to provide a clear and specific reply regarding the publication of the notice under Section 3G(3).

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the notice under Section 3G(3), which requires the competent authority to publish a public notice in two local newspapers, one in vernacular language, inviting claims from interested persons. The court found that the respondents did not comply with this requirement, as the notice was incorrectly issued under Section 3D. The court referenced a similar case, Sharda Yadav v. Union of India, where the failure to publish a notice under Section 3G(3) was deemed a violation of natural justice and statutory provisions.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the award dated 19th September 2018 was issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 3G(3) and thus quashed it. The petitioners were granted liberty to file objections in terms of Section 3G(3) before the competent authority, which was directed to consider the objections and pass a new award in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity for a hearing. The entire process was to be completed expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of the court's order. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

---