AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Article 226 petition is moved on service; the respondents are represented; affidavit is taken on record. When the writ petition was instituted, the
following principal relief was prayed for:â€
“A Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued upon the respondents particularly the competent authority under the National Highways
Act, 1956 and the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Nadia respondent No.4 herein to set aside and/or quash and/or recall and/or
withdraw the award passed in respect of the land described in paragraph 4 of this petition owned by your petitioners and further directing to re-
determine the amount of compensation in accordance with the provision of the first schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
land acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 forthwith and to pay compensation of the same in accordance with the provision of the
New Act of 2013 without further delay.†Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 is set out below:
 “3G. Determination of amount payable as compensationâ€
(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall bepaid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.
(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of aneasement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner
an any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount
calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.
(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-sectionor sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two
local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.
(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shallrequire all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal
practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective
interest in such land.
(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority undersub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount
shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under
this Act.
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determiningthe amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into
considerationâ€
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A;
(a) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from
other land;
(a) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting
his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(a) if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable
expenses, if any, incidental to such change.â€
Accordingly, the original dispute raised by the writ petitioner is a dispute in respect of the amount of compensation. While it is contended that the writ
petitioner’s case is that the amount of compensation ought to have been re-determined in terms of the first Schedule to Act 30 of 2013, that too is
a dispute in respect of the amount of compensation in terms of section 3G sub-section (5) of the 1956 Act. Accordingly, the writ petition was in
respect of a cause of action for which there exists an effective statutory alternative remedy being arbitration.
The law is settled at least from the case of SBP v. Patel Engineering reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618 that no judicial authority ought to intervene where
there exists a remedy of arbitration. I would have dismissed the writ petition on this ground alone, but for the fact that the arbitrator appointed under
the Act in respect of disputes raised by other parties has proceeded to hear the matter and pass an arbitral award in respect of the lands in question
taken as a lot which has affected the writ petitioners, since without challenging such an award they cannot get the remedy they seek from arbitration,
if they choose not to accept it. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to make appropriate application
before the jurisdictional principal civil court exercising original jurisdiction within the meaning of section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996.
Since the copy of the award has been received by the writ petitioner shortly before, in case the writ petitioner makes appropriate application in
accordance with law, the entire time taken by the writ petitioner from the institution of the present writ petition till today and for obtaining certified
website copy of this order shall be deemed to have been spent bona fide in proceeding before a forum without jurisdiction despite exercise of due
diligence. No costs. Certified website copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.