High CourtsSingle Bench

Chamman Singh & Others vs Union Of India & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 29 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 UK CK 0141

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
National Highways Act, 1956 — Section 3(E), 3(G), 3H(5)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 617, 618 Of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 398 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, both the petitions are clubbed together and are being heard &

decided together. For the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No. 617 of 2018 are being taken into consideration.

2.

Petitioner’s land situate in Village Jhankat, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar was acquired by National Highway Authority of India

for construction of National Highway. The Competent Authority Land Acquisition / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Udham Singh Nagar under

National Highways Act determined the amount payable as compensation to the petitioner vide order dated 17.08.2015.

3.

Petitioner is not satisfied by the determination so made by the Competent Authority Land Acquisition, therefore, he has approached this Court

seeking following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a order or direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 and notice dated U/S 3(E), 3(H) so far as it relates to the land and

buildings of the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to follow the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for acquisition of land for the purpose of National Highway no. 125 in

district â€" U.S. Nagar.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the compensation along with interest as well as the

provisions of The Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

4.

From the relief clause of the writ petition, it is revealed that petitioner has thrown challenge to the order passed by the Competent Authority Land

Acquisition. Under the scheme of the National Highways Act, 1956, petitioner has a Statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) by way of approaching the

Arbitrator.

5.

Since petitioner has the remedy to approach before the Arbitrator, therefore, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Arbitrator,

within four weeks from today. If petitioners approach the Arbitrator within stipulated time, the Arbitrator shall decide the matter(s) on merits, as early

as possible, but not later than twelve months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.