Back
2019 Supreme(All) 475
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD BENCH AT LUCKNOW
DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JJ.
Shiv Shyam - Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority/SPL Land Acquisition Officer, Barabanki - Respondent
Land Acquisition No. 9292 of 2019
Decided On : 15-04-2019
Vijay Kumar Tewari, Adv., Avanish Tewari, Adv.
Headnote:
National Highways Act, 1956 – Section- 3A, 3D, 3G (5) – "National Highways (Manner of depositing the amount by the Central Government with the competent authority for acquisition of land) Rules, 1998" – National Highways (Manner of depositing the amount by the Central Government; making requisite funds available to the competent authority for acquisition of land) Rules, 2019 – Rules 3 (I) (b) and 3(iv) – Section 3 – Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section- 34 – Seeking writ of Mandamus directing opposite party to disburse amount as deposited by National Highway Authority of India in account of petitioner immediately as provided under provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 – Held, There is no dispute to fact that land of petitioner was acquired under 1956 Act for purpose of widening of National Highway – Competent authority fixed amount of compensation for land payable to petitioner – Petitioner had recoursed to arbitration proceedings as provided under 1956 Act – Arbitrator enhanced amount of compensation payable to petitioner – Opposite party challenged arbitral award passed by arbitrator by filing application before District Court under Section 34(1) of 1996 Act but even though there is no interim order in favour of opposite party in proceeding initiated by opposite party under Section 34 (1) of the 1996 Act – It is not entitled to receive the enhanced amount of compensation till final disposal of proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, which is pending before District Judged –Petition dismissed. (Para, 15 & 21)
Facts of the case:
Seeking writ of Mandamus directing opposite party to disburse amount as deposited by National Highway Authority of India in account of petitioner immediately as provided under provisions of National Highways Act, 1956.
Findings of the court:
There is no dispute to fact that land of petitioner was acquired under 1956 Act for purpose of widening of National Highway – Competent authority fixed amount of compensation for land payable to petitioner – Petitioner had recoursed to arbitration proceedings as provided under 1956 Act – Arbitrator enhanced amount of compensation payable to petitioner – Opposite party challenged arbitral award passed by arbitrator by filing application before District Court under Section 34(1) of 1996 Act but even though there is no interim order in favour of opposite party in proceeding initiated by opposite party under Section 34 (1) of the 1996 Act – It is not entitled to receive the enhanced amount of compensation till final disposal of proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, which is pending before District Judged.
Result: Petition dismissed
NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.
1. Notice on behalf of opposite party has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel.
2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the opposite party to disburse the amount as deposited by the National Highway Authority of India dated 21.01.2019 in the account of the petitioner immediately (as provided under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956).
4. According to the petitioner, he is a poor farmer of Village- Dharauli, Pargana- Suryapur, Tehsil- Ram Sanehi Ghat, District-Barabanki. His land bearing Khasra No. 590, area 0.1300 Hectare was required by the National Highway Authority of India for widening National Highway No. 28. For this purpose, a notification under Section- 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "1956 Act") was issued on 01.06.2005 and 21.10.2005 respectively. Thereafter, the Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Barabanki declared the award dated 10.11.2016 in respect of the petitioner's land, whereby the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs. 7.14 per square feet.
5. It has been stated by the petitioner that in pursuance to the award dated 10.11.2016, though he got the amount of basic compensation but being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation as awarded by the opposite party, he preferred an arbitration petition, bearing Case No. 282/185 (14 - 15) (Computerized Case No. D-20150412001672), challenging the award dated 10.11.2006 before the District Magistrate, Barabanki/Arbitrator under Section- 3G (5) of the 1956 Act, seeking an enhancement in the rate of compensation as declared by the opposite party. Thereafter, the Arbitrator, after due consideration, passed the award dated 30.12.2015, whereby the rate of compensation was enhanced from Rs.7.14 per sq. ft. to Rs.32.52 per sq. ft. along with 9% interest from the date of possession of the land in question.
6. According to the petitioner, against the arbitral award dated 30.12.2015, the National Highway Authority of India has filed an appeal under Section- 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "1996 Act") before the District Judge, Barabanki, which was registered as Case No. 116/2016.
7. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the appeal preferred by the opposite party, there is no stay order till date but amount of enhanced compensation as awarded by the Arbitrator vide arbitral award dated 30.12.2015 has not been paid to the petitioner. His submission is that earlier, writ petition No. 30916 of 2018 (L/A) was filed with a prayer to direct the National Highway Authority of India to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with 9% interest from the date of possession in terms of the arbitral award dated 30.12.2015. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.10.2018, disposed of the writ petition on the assurance of the learned Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India that the amount will be deposited before the competent authority within two weeks but the petitioner ought to have moved an application before the appellate Court itself in the appeal filed against the arbitral award by the National Highway Authority.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the National Highway Authority of India has deposited the enhanced amount of compensation as assured by them in the joint account of opposite party on 21.01.2019 and provided the information as well as the answer of questions raised by the petitioner under Right to Information Act but the amount was not allowed to be disbursed to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has filed writ petition No. 4149 of 2019 (L/A), which was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition as and when the cause of action arose, vide judgment and
