Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1127 (ALL)

Rashid Hussain v. Union of India

2023-04-24

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, MANJIVE SHUKLA

body2023
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Shiv Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the additional market value @ 12% per annum under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and solatium @ 30% under section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the light of judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Tarsem and others to the petitioners in respect of land bearing Khasra No.329 area 0.774 hectare and Khasra No.330 area 0.1626 hectare of Revenue Village Sithra, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 21.02.2022 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition)." 3. Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition on two folds submission, firstly that the petitioners have already approached the Arbitrator under section 3G (5) of National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, the Act, 1956) and without disclosing the same, the present writ petition is preferred and secondly, two simultaneous proceedings cannot be permitted to go on. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the order dated 25.3.2021 passed in Writ C No.8397 of 2021 (Sanskriti University v. Union of India and 2 others) wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with following observations:- "Direction sought germinate from the contention made in paragraph no.17 wherein it is stated by the petitioner that competent Authority passed an award on 07.06.2013 purportedly under the provision of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 for village Semri, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura wherein the compensation arrived at the rate of Rs. 3.5 crore per hectare for residential land or Rs. 3500/- per square meter plus 10% additional amount. It is contended that while computing the same, Authority concern did not add solatium and interest to the said compensation. 3.5 crore per hectare for residential land or Rs. 3500/- per square meter plus 10% additional amount. It is contended that while computing the same, Authority concern did not add solatium and interest to the said compensation. Evidently, petitioner is aggrieved by the said award to the extent that lesser compensation has been determined by the Competent Authority. For redressal of such grievance, petitioner has remedy under sub-section (5) of 3-G of the Act, 1956, which mandates that:- "(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." In view whereof, in our considered opinion since the petitioner has alternative, efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance, we are not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Doubt at this stage is raised by learned counsel for petitioner whether it will be within the competence of the Arbitrator to examine the aspect of adding solatium and interest of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. For answer lies in sub-section (7) of Section 3G of 1956 Act, stipulates:- "(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration? (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change." Thus, the contention made on behalf of petitioner to the effect that the Arbitrator exercises limited jurisdiction is taken note of and rejected in view of sub-section (7) of Section 3G of 1956 Act. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has alternative, efficacious statutory remedy for redressal of his grievance, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Petition stands disposed of. No costs." 4. We have gone through the record and find that the land of the petitioners was acquired for widening the National Highway-25 Bareilly-Pilibhit-Sitarganj Section vide notification dated 21.08.2012 and the Competent Authority had declared the award on 07.3.2014. Once the petitioners have already approached before the Arbitrator under Section 3G (7) of the Act, 1956 against the said award to the extent that lesser compensation has been determined by the Competent Authority and the matter is pending consideration before the Arbitrator, then we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, it is always open to the petitioners to press the relief before the Arbitrator. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.