We have heard Mr. Harshadray A. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Karnavat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Kabir A. Hathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy involved in this petition is covered by the decision of this Court dated 20.7.2012 in Special Civil Application No.14268 of 2011 along with other cognate matters in the case of Kheda District Land Looser Association and another v. Ministry of Railways, Railway Board and others. The judgment of the Division Bench is extracted below :-
“1. The petitioners have approached this Court in personal and representative capacity pursuant to acquisition of large chunk of land for Western Dedicated Freight Corridor Project of the Indian Railways and sought to challenge the acquisition proceedings as well as the process of determination of compensation and grant of benefits under the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2007 (for short, “NRRP 2007”). After the petitions being argued at some length, it was clear and fairly conceded that, by now, the lands in question have already vested in the Central Government by virtue of provisions of Section 20-E of the Railways Act, 1989 and the issue of compensation is already referred to arbitration under the provisions of Section 20-F. It was conceded that such of the project affected families as were entitled to the benefits under that Scheme will have to submit their applications/affidavits in the prescribed form and upon receipt thereof the competent authority under the respondent shall take necessary steps preferably within a period of three months to ensure that the affected families can avail of the benefits, in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and the Railways Act, 1989. As for determination of the amount of compensation, it was clear that provisions of Section 20-G, more particularly Section 20-G (3) will have to be kept in view and given effect to.
2. Upon such understanding and agreement being recorded herein, the petitions were not pressed for any order on merits or for any further relief except that a request was made for the petitioners to direct the arbitrators concerned to carry out the proceedings in accordance with law under Section 20-F as early as practicable. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed and Notices issued therein are discharged with no order as to costs, with the observation that proceedings under Section 20-F may be concluded as early as practicable and preferably within a period of six months. It is further observed that the amounts which are already determined under the provisions of Section 20-F(1) should be paid, in cases where it is as yet not paid, at the earliest.”
3. Since the learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy involved in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, therefore, we also dispose of this writ petition on the same terms and conditions as provided in the aforesaid order. The petition was not pressed for any order on merits or for any further relief except that a request was made for the petitioners to direct the arbitrators concerned to carry out the proceedings in accordance with law under Section 20-F as early as practicable. Accordingly, the petition is disposed and notice issued therein is discharged with no order as to costs, with the observation that proceedings under Section 20-F may be concluded as early as practicable and preferably within a period of six months. It is further observed that the amounts which are already determined under the provisions of Section 20-F(1) should be paid, in case where it is as yet not paid, at the earliest.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/-
[N. V. ANJARIA, J.] Savariya