THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 46 OF 2008 DATED:22-11-2011 Between: The Government of India, rep., by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport and Highways, (Dept. of Road, Transport and Highways), New Delhi and another … Appellants And Smt. Shilpa R. Patel and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 46 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 01-10-2007 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12792 of 2007. 2. The challenge in the writ petition was as to notification SO.No.1489 (E) dated 17-10-2005 and consequential notification SO.No.1732 (E) dated 09-10-2006 issued by respondent No.1 under Sections 3A and 3D respectively of the National Highways Act, 1956. 3. The notifications deal with acquisition of land and the learned single Judge upheld the notifications and found that they were not issued contrary to law. 4. However, the learned single Judge went beyond the prayer in the writ petition and laid down the principles for determining the compensation to be awarded to the writ petitioner. It is this determination which has led to the filing of the present appeal. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned single Judge has gone well beyond the scope of the writ petition. It is submitted that the determination of compensation or the principles thereof was not the subject matter of the writ petition. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the principles laid down by the learned single Judge are contrary to the statute. 6. It is not for us to go into the merits of the principles laid down by the learned single Judge since we are in agreement with learned counsel that the learned single Judge has gone beyond the prayer Writ Appeal No. 46 of 2011 Page 1 of 2 in the writ petition while determining the principles for the award of compensation. 7. The learned single Judge has observed that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Competent Authority vs. Bangalore Jute Factory and others[1], the relevant date to determine the compensation is the date when possession of the land is taken by the appellants from the writ petitioner and the claim of interest on the amount of compensation so determined is to be decided in accordance with law by the appropriate authority. 8. In our opinion, the aforesaid conclusion was not warranted since there was no prayer made by the writ petitioner in this regard. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the observations made by the learned single Judge with regard to the principles for determination of compensation being as on the date when possession of the land is taken are set aside. We leave this question open. 10. We are not inclined to interfere with the conclusion of the learned single Judge that the two impugned notifications are valid in law. 11. The appeal is partly allowed and miscellaneous application is disposed of. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 22-11-2011 ks [1] I (2006) CLT 108 Writ Appeal No. 46 of 2011 Page 2 of 2