Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 1203
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Rajendra Menon, Alok Verma, JJ.
Archana Nagriya - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sarkar - Respondent
W.P.No.6737-2014
Decided On : 08-08-2014
For the Petitioner: Manoj Chaturvedi, Adv.
For the Respondent:Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 on advance notice.
The main legal point established is that under the National Highways Act, 1956, the remedy for a compensation dispute lies in approaching the Arbitrator as provided under Section 3(g)(v) of the Act.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Compensation Dispute
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the lack of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under the National Highways Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's remedy was to file a dispute before the Arbitrator as provided under Section 3(g)(v) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the petitioner's right to challenge it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's remedy was to approach the Arbitrator as provided under the National Highways Act, 1956, and declined to go into the matter on merit at the Article 226 stage.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator, who was directed to consider the petitioner's grievance and decide the same within a reasonable time.
JUDGMENT
1.Calling in question tenability of an order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer exercising jurisdiction under the National Highways Act, 1956, this writ petition has been filed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that even though, the petitioner had made a claim for awarding of compensation, no compensation has been awarded and the objections and quantification of the claim as requested for by the petitioner is totally ignored and nothing has been done.
3. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance notice points out that against the award and the action taken in not granting any compensation to the petitioner, the petitioner has a remedy of filing a dispute before the Arbitrator namely, Commissioner of the Division under Section 3(g)(v) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and, therefore, this petition is unsustainable.
4. In view of the above, we find much force in the objection raised by learned counsel for the National Highway Authorities Shri Mohan Sausarkar.
5. Even if, the Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation and has ignored to consider the claim of the petitioner based on the ground raised before him, the Arbitrator is well within his power to consider and decide the objections and if found feasible, pass an award granting compensation to the petitioner.
6. That being so, as the said remedy of taking the claim before the Arbitrator is available to the petitioner under Section 3(g)(v) of the National Highways Act, 1956, we do not deem it appropriate to go into the matter on merit at this stage in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and instead grant liberty to the petitioner to approach to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator is directed to take note of the grievance of the petitioner and decide the same within a reasonable time.
7. A certified copy of the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer be returned back to learned counsel for the petitioner on his filing a photocopy of the same.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.
