Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1296 (MP)

Pratap Sambhaji Rao Khutal v. State of M. P.

2011-11-16

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2011
Judgment Shantanu Kemkar, J.- Heard on the question of admission. This writ appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is filed against the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 8327 of 2011. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant/petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition seeking quashment of the notice dated 19.5.2011 (Annexure P-1) issued under section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, the Act of 1956)-informing the appellant that the compensation has been determined by the competent authority as provided under section 3G of the Act of 1956. 3. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant raised grounds about inadequacy of the compensation amount determined by the competent authority. The learned Single Judge examined the appellant's contention and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that if the appellant/petitioner is aggrieved by the determination of amount of compensation he has remedy to approach the arbitrator as provided under section 3G (5)' of the Act, 1956. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed this intra court appeal. 5. Before this Court for the first time a plea has been raised by the appellant that during the pendency of the matter before the arbitrator the respondents are not entitled to take possession of the land/property in question. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, in our view the appellant is not entitled to raise a new plea for the first time in this appeal. However, we have examined the plea on merits but we are of the view that the plea has no merit. 7. Section 3A of the Act of 1956 provides powers of the Central Government to acquire land. Section 3C provides hearing of objections of any person interested in the land. Section 3E provides powers to take possession. However, we have examined the plea on merits but we are of the view that the plea has no merit. 7. Section 3A of the Act of 1956 provides powers of the Central Government to acquire land. Section 3C provides hearing of objections of any person interested in the land. Section 3E provides powers to take possession. It provides that where any land is vested in the Central Government under sub section (2) of section 3D of the Act of 1956 and the amount determined by the competent authority under Section 3G with respect to such land has been deposited under sub section (1) of section 3H with the competent authority by the Central Government, the competent authority may by notice in writing direct the owner as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorized by it in this behalf within sixty days of the service of the notice. Sub section (2) of section 3E provides procedure for getting compliance of the directions made under sub sections (1) of section 3E. 8. We find that the competent authority under the Act of 1956 vide award dated 18.3.2011 has determined the compensation payable to the appellant and has deposited the same as provided under sub section (1) of section 3H in the manner provided under sub section (1) of section 3H. In the circumstances, merely because the appellant has invoked the provisions of section 3G (5) of the Act of 1956 by approaching the arbitrator or being dissatisfied with the amount determined by the competent authority, he is not entitled to resist taking over possession of the land by the competent authority. Section 3E empowers taking over possession on determination and deposit of the amount of compensation by the competent authority and the taking over of the possession cannot wait till decision is given by the arbitrator. 9. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained under the Act of 1956 no case is made out to make interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to restrain the respondents from taking possession of the appellant's land till the mater is decided by the arbitrator. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. C.C. as per rules.