Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2137 (PNJ)

Harwinder Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

2019-07-24

GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - This order shall dispose of above-captioned two writ petitions as the point in issue is common. For the sake of disposal, CWP-2879-2018 is being treated as the lead case. 2. The present writ petition challenges the award dated 04.08.2016 qua the petitioner passed by the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) (P8) being illegal, arbitrary, primarily on the ground that the land which has been acquired of the petitioner under the National Highways Act, 1956 was falling within the urban area of the Municipal Council, Samrala. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed objections under Section 3-C of the 1956 Act before the Competent Authority who vide order dated 04.08.2016 (P7) assessed the market value @ Rs. 50,42,400/- per acre for village Ladhran Hadbast No. 86, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. It is the case of the petitioner that another award was passed qua the land included within the Municipal boundaries of MC Samrala wherein the amount of compensation was assessed @ Rs. 97,36,480/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 1,44,45,706/- for gair mumkin land. In such circumstances the amount of compensation as such awarded has been challenged. 3. A perusal of the award would show that for village Ladhran, the land of the petitioner was shown as agriculture in column No. 7. Various types of land have also been shown having gair mumkin plinth, house, petroleum pump, service station, school etc. On the basis of rate fixed as such vide the award, different amounts have been fixed for chahi @ Rs. 50,42,400/- per acre and for gair mumkin @ Rs. 96 lakhs. Similarly, various other amounts have been awarded for other villages also as per the chart given below:- Sr. No. Name of village Type of land Area acquired in marlas Area acquired in acres Basic Market rate fixed for compensation (marlas) Basic Market Rate fixed for compensation (Acres) Total Compensation for Basic Market Rate 1 Ladhran HB No.86 Chahi 2148 13.425 31515 5042400 67694220 Gair Mumkin 204 1.275 60000 9600000 12240000 2 Rohlan (HB No.87) G.M. 212 1.325 59238 9478080 12558456 3 Bijlipur HB No.142 G.M. 211 1.31875 69070 11051200 14573770 4 Neelon Kalan HB No.85 G.M. 434 2.7125 43361 6937760 18818674 5 Lall Kalan HB No.259 G.M. 2237 13.98125 60410 9665600 135137170 5549 Total 26,10,22,290 4. Thus it is apparent that for gair murnkin the amount varies for different villages in the revenue estates. 5. The stand of the official respondents No. 3 in the preliminary submission also is that the petitioners have right to file petition before the Arbitrator appointed under the 1956 Act for enhancement of land compensation apart from the fact that the calculation of rate of compensation has been done according to Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It has been further averred that calculation of the price of land for acquisition is done on the basis of actual sale transaction in the village concerned. 6. In the replication, para 3 has not been specifically denied and thus it is apparent that even the petitioners are aware that they have got an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the statutory Arbitrator. 7. Respondent No. 2 in its reply has also taken the same plea and referred to the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 29431 of 2017 Phool Singh v. National Highway Authority of India & Ors. decided on 12.03.2018. The decision as such pertained to the issues on claim of solatium and interest which had been preferred and in similar circumstances awards of the LAC had been challenged before this Court. It was noticed that the landowners in that set of cases had earlier also preferred the applications before statutory Arbitrator and also gone to the Additional District Judge and thereafter approached the writ Court. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "Thus, in view of the alternative remedy as such available, it is always open to the petitioner to seek recourse to his alternative remedy for the statutory benefits which are due as it is settled principle that recourse to the writ court cannot be made if there is efficacious and alternative remedy available. The Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 has noticed the principles of alternative remedy. It was observed that it was a self imposed restraint and the alternative remedy was a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The relevant observations read as under:- "44. The Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 has noticed the principles of alternative remedy. It was observed that it was a self imposed restraint and the alternative remedy was a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. The relevant observations read as under:- "44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance." 8. The principle as such is similar and more-so since disputed issues also regarding the market value of the land in question has to be gone into. The statutory arbitrator would be best suited to go into this thicket of disputed question as it is settled law that the writ court would not tread where the facts are not clear and the compensation is to be based upon sale exemplars of the area. Similar landowners would have already approached the statutory Arbitrator and therefore it would further lead to a very paradox situation since an appeal is provided as award of the Arbitrator can be challenged under the 1996 Act and a further appeal is provided to this Court and therefore it would lead to contradictory orders being passed if the statutory remedy as such is not availed. In such circumstances keeping in view the settled principle of law once there is an alternative remedy available more so as per Sections 3-G(5) & (6) of the Act provides a forum for the landowners who do not accept the amount determined by the competent authority. They thus have a right to approach the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. The relevant provision read as under:- "(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act." 9. The writ petitions are disposed of being not maintainable before the writ court and petitioners are relegated to the remedy of statutory Arbitrator in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case regarding quantification of the amount. 10. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.