Back
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, MANJIVE SHUKLA
Rashid Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek compensation under land acquisition act. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability and prior proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 3. writ petition disposed for alternative remedy. (Para 5) |
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:-
Arbitral awards in land acquisition omitting statutory solatium/interest and ignoring land potentiality are patently illegal and set aside under Arbitration Act public policy.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under S.34/37 Arbitration Act; courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify land compensation awards under NH Act.
Compliance with Arbitration Awards is essential for safeguarding property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available, and the appropriate court for ....
The court ruled that compensation for land acquisition must reflect market value and consider hardships faced by landowners, as mandated by the National Highways Act and RFCTLARR Act.
Narrow scope under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act limits interference with NHAI arbitral awards to patent illegality, not re-appreciating evidence or enhancing compensation.
Landowners are entitled to solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, despite pending arbitration cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
