Back
2021 Supreme(Jhk) 331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
National Highways Authority of India, through its Project Director, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Dhanbad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1332, 1333 of 2020
Decided On : 22-07-2021
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sweety Topno Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku
For the State : Mr. Shray Mishra, Mr. Ashish Priyadarshi, Mr. Sanjeev Thakur
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an arbitrator's decision based on relevant evidence, including committee reports and official records, is valid unless there is evidence of bias or personal interest.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3A - Parti Kadim land acquired for widening of NH-32 - Nature of land disputed - Arbitrator allowed appeal for enhancement of compensation based on residential land classification - Challenge to order on grounds of bias and illegal change of land nature - Court upheld arbitrator's decision based on committee report and circle officer's report - Compensation for adjacent plots also considered - Petitions dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders allowing appeal for enhancement of compensation for land acquired for widening of NH-32. The nature of the acquired land was disputed, with the petitioners claiming it to be agricultural and the respondents claiming it to be residential. The petitioners objected to the committee report's classification of the land as residential, alleging bias due to the arbitrator's involvement in the committee. They also argued that the nature of the land could not be changed after compensation was paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitrator, acting as an Arbitrator, had considered the committee report and the circle officer's report in determining the nature of the land. The court rejected the petitioners' objections, stating that the arbitrator's involvement in the committee did not vitiate the report and that there was no evidence of bias or personal interest. The court also noted that compensation for adjacent plots was paid based on residential classification.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the arbitrator's decision in considering the committee report and the nature of the acquired land, as well as the alleged bias due to the arbitrator's involvement in the committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the arbitrator's decision, based on the committee report and other relevant evidence, was valid and not vitiated by bias. The court emphasized that the nature of the land was determined based on the area/locality, not the presence of construction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the arbitrator's decision and the subsequent action taken based on the orders allowing enhancement of compensation.
1. Both these writ petitions have been filed for quashing the orders dated 20.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.4 in Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 24/2017 and Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 23 of 2017 respectively whereby the said respondent being an Arbitrator, has allowed the aforesaid appeal cases preferred by the private respondents (the respondent No.6 in both the writ petitions) for enhancement of compensation. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the State-respondents to call back letter No. 468/L.A dated 28.04.2016 issued by the respondent No.5.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ‘Parti Kadim’ land of the private respondents appertaining to Khata No. 56, Plot No. 1138, Village2 Dumarjor, P.S. No. 28, District-Bokaro, measuring an area of 0.2450 Acre and 0.1750 Acre (total 0.42 Acre) was acquired for widening of NH-32 and the compensation for the same was also paid to them by the order of the respondent No.5 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2011-12 as per the market value of agricultural land prevailing at the time of publication of notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’]. Thereafter, the private respondents preferred appeal separately before the respondent No.4 for enhancement of compensation which were registered as Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 24/2017 and Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 23 of 2017 respectively. During the pendency of the said appeal, several villagers made representations before the respondent No.3 claiming that the nature of the acquired land was residential and not agricultural. Thereafter, a seven-member-committee was constituted by the respondent No.3 of which the respondent No.4 was also a member. The said committee conducted a joint spot verification and submitted the report to the respondent No.4 observing that the land in question is residential in nature. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 directing the respondent No.5 to pay compensation for the acquired land treating the same to be residential and not agricultural land. It is further submitted that pursuant to order dated 20.09.2017, the respondent No.5 prepared an amended award and vide letter No. 1306 dated 18.11.2017, asked the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs.42,96,325/-. It is further submitted that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India has issued comprehensive guidelines for acquisition of the land for National Highways Projects. As per Para 10(iii) of the said guidelines, the nature of the land, as recorded in the revenue records on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, has to be taken into consideration for payment of compensation. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 himself was one of the members of the said committee and as such he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 on the principle of “No one can be a Judge in his own cause”. It is also submitted that the said committee had no right to change the nature of the land after preparation of the award and payment of the compensation under the provisions of the Act, 1956. The impugned order dated 20.09.2017 is thus illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.
3. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits that the respondent No.4 while passing the impugned order dated 20.09.2017, not only relied upon the report of the seven-member committee, but also took into consideration the report of the Circle Officer dated 02.03.2016 wherein the said land was described as a residential land. The respondent No.4 also found that the compensation for the adjacent plots i.e. Plot Nos. 1143 & 1134 was paid treating the same as residential plots. It is further submitted that merely due to the fact that the respondent No.4 was one of the members of the said committee, does not
