IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 1372 of 2013

Suren Mahto S/o Madhu Mahto, resident of Village & PO-Kothar, PS-

Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh

.……

Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Dy. Commissioner, Ramgarh.

3.Additional Collector, Ramgarh.

4.District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh.

5.National Highways Authority of India through Project Director, Project

Implementation Unit, NHAI, Flat No.402, Road No.4C, Ashok Nagar,

Ranchi.

……

Respondents

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate

For the Respondent-NHAI: Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate

: Mr. Amit Raj Kisku, Advocate

-----------

03/Dated: 14^th March, 2022

The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

whereby and whereunder, prayer for quashing of the order dated 17.12.2012

passed in Case No.146 of 2011-12 has been made by which the application

filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 28.12.2011 for enhancement of

amount of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land, has been rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted by

referring to the impugned order that the ground which has been taken by the

petitioner therein for enhancement of the amount of compensation in lieu of

acquisition has not properly been considered.

While on the other hand, Mrs. Sweety Topno, learned counsel for the

respondent-N.H.A.I. submits by referring to the impugned order that the said

order has been passed by the Arbitrator in exercise of power conferred under

Section 3 (g) (5) of National Highways Act, 1956 and as such, after the

arbitration having been made by the Arbitrator in exercise of aforesaid

power, the writ petition is not fit to be entertained, since, the issue depends

upon adjudication of the factual aspect which only to be appreciated by

leading evidence on behalf of the respective parties. She further submits that

after the order passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 (g) (5)

of Act, 1956 the remedy is available by invoking the jurisdiction as

conferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

before the Sub Judge.

Upon such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks

permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move before the

appropriate court to avail the opportunity as provided under Section 34 of

the Act, 1996.

The aforesaid submission has not been disputed by the learned

counsel for the respondent-N.H.A.I.

Considering the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the

writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the writ petitioner to approach

before the competent court availing the opportunity provided under Section

34 of the Act, 1996.

The concerned court will consider the pendency of the writ petition, if

issue of limitation will be agitated on behalf of the respondent.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to

approach before the appropriate forum.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

Saket/-