The court emphasized the importance of following the directions issued by a superior court/authority and held that the failure to do so warranted the quashing of the order. The court also clarified that the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. These two connected writ petitions arise out of same controversy and, therefore, were heard together. Since all the relevant facts and arguments are covered by Writ C No.33840 of 2023, a detailed judgement is being pronounced treating the said writ petition as the leading one and after conclusion of the judgement in the said writ petition, a separate order shall be passed in the connected Writ C No.42177 of 2023.

2. The Writ C No.33840 of 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order/award dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Collector, Jhansi in the capacity of Arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’) made applicable by virtue of Section 3G(6) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) in Case No. 2337 of 2023 (Computerized Case No.D202306370002337) (Dr. Rajeev Sinha v. National Highways Authority of India, Jhansi), with a further prayer directing the District Magistrate /Collector /Arbitrator, Jhansi to decide the said case in terms of guidelines/directions contained in the judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the District Judge, Jhansi.

THE WRIT PETITION

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased part of land covered by Plot No.481, ad-measuring 0.230 hectares, i.e. 2300 sq. mtrs., situated in Village Koncha Bhanwar, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Jhansi, vide registered sale deeds dated 27.03.1993 and 04.02.1994. It is pleaded that, in exercise of powers under the Act of 1956, the Central Government issued a notification dated 03.09.2009 under Section 3A of the Act which was followed by notification dated 09.04.2010 under Section 3D of the Act acquiring the petitioner’s land and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, assessing the market value of the land @ Rs.15 lacs per hectare and attaching certain value to the constructions existing thereon, declared an award dated 30.09.2010. The petitioner approached the Competent Authority as per Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 whereafter an Arbitration Case No.521 of 2012 was registered before Collector/ District Magistrate, Jhansi. The Arbitrator declared his award on 15.09.2017 on the lines of the Special Land Acquisition Officer principally on the ground that the land had not been declared as ‘abadi’ under Section 143 of the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act’) and, therefore, would continue to remain an ‘agricultural land’.

4. The petitioner assailed the award dated 15.09.2017 by availing statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 made applicable by virtue of Section 3G(6) of the Act of 1956. The District Judge, Jhansi, by judgment and order dated 27.04.2022, passed in Misc. Case No.12 of 2017 under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, set aside the award dated 15.09.2017 and remanded the matter to the Arbitrator for fresh consideration in the light of observations made in the order itself after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. After remand, the District Magistrate/Collector, Jhansi, as Arbitrator, has, by the order impugned dated 28.07.2023, rejected the reference holding that the compensation awarded under the award dated 30.09.2010 was according the law and that the petitioner was not entitled to any further compensation. It is this order of the Arbitrator which is under challenge in the present writ petition and has been assailed mainly on the ground that the directions contained in the order of the District Judge dated 27.04.2022 have not been followed by the Arbitrator. The detailed arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner shall be noted at appropriate place in this judgement.

PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE

5. This Court, in its order dated 04.10.2023, noted the main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the Collector had chosen to overlook the directions