[National Highways Act] Second Award Not Permitted, State's Illegal Action Has To Be Nipped In The Bud If Affecting Parties' Rights: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that National Highways Act does not provide for issuing a second award with respect to the land acquired pursuant to Notifications under 3-A and 3-D of the Act.

A single judge bench of Justice E S Indiresh allowed a batch of petitions and set aside the second award by the competent authority dated 22nd January, 2021 and Order dated 27th January, 2021, which granted a lower compensation to the petitioners in lieu of their land.

Senior Advocate G S Kannur appearing for one of the petitioners had argued that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities, the authorities had passed the award dated 17th December, 2020 determining the compensation.

Further, he contended that said award was signed by the competent authority. However, thereafter, the authority issued another award dated 22 January 2021, drastically reducing the compensation. It was argued the said second award is non-est and cannot be accepted.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the coordinate bench in the case of National Highways V. Assistant Commissioner And Competent Authority, wherein it was held that the authorities have no authority under law to pass second award.

Senior Advocate Udaya Holla appearing for National Highway, contended that the relief sought for by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative and efficacious remedy under National Highways Act. It was also argued that the award dated 17th December, 2020 is only a draft award.

Findings:

The bench noted that respondent-authorities issued preliminary notification on 09th January, 2020 under Section 3-A of the Act followed by the final Notification dated 10th July, 2020 under Section 3-D of the Act. The competent authority was authorised to effectuate the acquisition proceedings as per Notification dated 27th June, 2014, the bench noted.

"The respondent-authorities issued Notification dated 17th December, 2020, determining the compensation under Section 3-G of the Act, read with Section 29 of the Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013," it added.

The court said it has carefully examined the notification on the first award and found that the same does not mention that it was a draft award.

It added the letter dated 22nd January, 2021, issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, whereby the former has revised the award under Section 3-G of the Act in respect of the land situated in Puttige village of Mudabidri taluk, clearly substantiates the petitioner's arguments that "the award dated 22nd January, 2021, is a second award made by the respondent-authorities in the absence of specific provision under the National Highways Act, providing for making second award with respect to the land acquired pursuant to Notifications under 3-A and 3-D of the Act."

The court said writ petitions deserve to be allowed.

As regards the contention of the respondents that petitioners have alternate remedy to challenge the award the bench said, "The said submission cannot be accepted for the reason the impugned award dated 22nd January, 2021 said to have been issued by the respondent-authorities under section 3- G of the Act upon issuing the earlier award dated 17th December, 2020 (Annexure-D), which creates rights in favour of the petitioners claiming compensation under the Act."

It added, "In that view of the matter, reviewing the very same award by way of impugned award dated 22nd January, 2021 does not arise at all and the same is without jurisdiction and therefore, this Court is having jurisdiction to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set right the jurisdictional error on the part of the respondent-authority while issuing second award."

The bench also said that if the instrumentality of the State, has acted in contravention of the statutory provisions which affect the rights of the parties concerned, such illegal and arbitrary action, on the part of authorities, has to be nipped in the bud and cannot be perpetuated since the very action of such authorities is not only an irregularity in nature but also amounts to illegality which cannot be accepted under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In that view of the matter, even if the alternative remedy is available for the petitioners to approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, however, the same cannot be said to be an efficacious remedy to nullify such erroneous decision on the part of the respondent authorities," it said.

Case Title: VALERIAL SEQUERIA & others v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY N H 169.