Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
P.K. Jaiswal, Karunesh Singh Pawar, JJ.
Paras - Appellants
Vs.
U.O.I. and Ors.- Respondent
Land Acquisition No. 29163 of 2019
Decided On : 18-02-2020
For the Appellant : Niyaj Ahmad
For the Respondents: C.S.C., A.S.G. and Samidha
Point of law: in view of the rider under Rule 3 (b) of the Rules of 2019, the enhanced compensation and interest cannot be paid to the claimants unless and until the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 are finalized
Headnote:
National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3-A - Constitution of India - Article 226 - pay compensation of land – Claim of compensation – Acquisition of Land - learned counsel for opposite party no. 3, on the basis of instructions, submits that the opposite party no. 3, National Highway Authority of India, has challenged the award of the Arbitrator dated 12.03.2018 in the proceedings under Section 34 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996') before the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, which is pending. She has also submitted that the petitioner has already been paid the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority, however, so far as the issue of payment of enhanced amount of compensation as determined by the Arbitrator is concerned -
Finding of the court : It is submitted that the petitioners have already been paid the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority, however, so far as the issue of payment of enhanced amount of compensation as determined by the Arbitrator is concerned, the same is sub judice in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as such, in view of Rule 3 (b) 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 (for short 'Rules of 2019') there is a rider for payment of enhanced compensation and interest subject to decision on application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as such, unless and until the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 are decided by the competent Court, enhanced amount of compensation cannot be paid to the petitioners –
Result : Petition dispose of
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri Niyaj Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, S.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 and Ms. Samidha learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
2. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has submitted that amount in terms of the award dated 01.09.2017 will be deposited within two weeks from today, but the same will not be disbursed as the issue the issue has already been decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 34465 (L/A) of 2019 on 12.12.2019 and writ petition No. 36625 (L/A) of 2019 on 02.01.2020. The order dated 02.01.2020 reads as under:-
"Memo of appearance filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1 by Sri. Krishna Lal Yadav, Advocate, is taken on record.
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direction and commanding the Competent Authority NHAI-233/Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Ambedkar Nagar to pay compensation of land Gata No. 438/0.0967 Hec. situated at Village Dasraicha, Pargana-Bidhar, Tehsil-Tanda, District-Ambedkar Nagar in compliance of final order dated 12.03.2018 passed by Arbitrator/Collector, Ambedkar Nagar within stipulated period, in the interest of justice.
ii. Any other or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner."
According to the petitioner, he is the recorded owners and bhumidhari of land at Gata No. 438 measuring 0.0967 hectare situated at Village Dasraicha, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar. The opposite party no. 2 had issued a Notification under Section 3-A National Highways Act, 1956 (for the short 'Act of 1956') on 30.7.2012 in order to acquire the land for the purpose of construction of road from Bharat Nepal boundary to Varanasi which is called as National Highway No. 233. The declaration of acquisition under Section 3-D of the Act of 1956 was published on 14.6.2013 (wrongly mentioned as 8.8.2013). Being aggrieved from the award dated 7.11.2015, the petitioner had filed a case No. D-20160440920 (Satyawati Devi and others vs. Union of India and others) under Section 3-G (5) of the Act of 1956 before the Arbitrator/Collector, Ambedkar Nagar. The Arbitrator decided the case vide order dated 12.3.2018 whereby the rate was fixed as Rs. 1700/- per square meter.
Grievance of the petitioner is that in compliance of the order dated 12.03.2018, the petitioner has not been paid compensation for the land in question, therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.
Ms. Samidha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3, on the basis of instructions, submits that the opposite party no. 3, National Highway Authority of India, has challenged the award of the Arbitrator dated 12.03.2018 in the proceedings under Section 34 the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996') before the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, which is pending. She has also submitted that the petitioner has already been paid the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority, however, so far as the issue of payment of enhanced amount of compensation as determined by the Arbitrator is concerned, the same is sub judice in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as such, in view of Rule 3 (b) 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 (for short 'Rules of 2019') there is a rider for payment of enhanced compensation and interest subject to decision on application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as such, unless and until the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 are decided by the competent Court, enhanced amount of compensation cannot be paid to the petitioners. In support of her submission, learned counsel for opp
