Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37984 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jitendra Prasad And 4 Others Respondent :- National Highways Authority Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Maurya I Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal,Sudhanshu Srivastava
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel representing respondent-1, National Highways Authority of India and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent-3.
2. Petitioner has filed present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution seeking following relief:
“ (I) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to condone the delay in making reference under Section 64 before the aruthority and to transfer the cases as Misc. Case No. 188 of 2019 Jitendra Prasad Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak, Misc. Case No. 184 of 2019 Reena Devi Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak, Misc. Case No. 185 of 2019 Rajesh Kumar Keshary Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak, Misc, Case No. 183 of 2019 Manashah Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak & Misc. Case No. 186 of 2019 Dukhana Devi Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak (As Annexure No. 8 of the writ petition). Which is pending before District Judge Chandauli before Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement authority under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Act, 2013.
(II) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to respondent No.4 to made reference under section 64 of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 about the cases as Misc. Case No.188 of 2019 Jitendra Prasad Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak, Misc. Case No. 184 of 2019 Reena Devi Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak, Misc. Case No. 185 of 2019 Rajesh Kumar Keshary Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak, Misc, Case No. 183 of 2019 Manashah Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak & Misc. Case No. 186 of 2019 Smt. Dukhana Devi Vs. Pariyojana Nideshak pending before him before Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement authority .
(III) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(IV) To award, the cast of the petition in favour of the Petitioner.”
3. Fourth schedule of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2013) at item no.3 mentions National Highway Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1956). Therefore, in respect of Act 1956, provisions of Act 2013 are not applicable except to the extent which is provided under sub-Section 3 of Section 105 of the Act 2013. In exercise of powers under Section 105 (3) of Act 2013, State Government issued notification dated 28th August, 2015 which is called “Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015”. Aforesaid order reads as under:
“1.(1) This Order may be called the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015.
(2) It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of September, 2015.
2. The provisions of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act.”
4. With regard to determination of compensation and rehabilitation in accordance with First and Second Schedule of Act 2013, provisions of Act 2013 have been made applicable to all enactments specified in Fourth Schedule which includes Act 1956. Therefore, determination of compensation by Competent Authority under Section 3-G (I) of Act 1956 is also covered by provisions of Schedule 1, 2 and 3 of Act 2013. However, if land owner is not satisfied with amount of compensation so determined by Competent Authority, he is not remedy-less as remedy is provided in Section 3-G (5) of Act 1956, which provides a different forum for adjudication called arbitration. Section 64 of Act 2013 also provides for a different forum for adjudication in case land owner is dissatisfied with the award. In our view, notification under Section 105 of Act 2013 does not provide for another forum than the one provided under Act 1956 in case land owner is dissatisfied with award. Admittedly, as per scheme of Act 1956, an aggrieved land owner can approach Arbitrator under Section 3-G (5) of Act 1956. Who shall be the Arbitrator has to be determined by the Centeral Government under Section 3-G (5) of Act 1956 itself. Consequently, in view of above by virtue of notification under Section 105 of Act 2013, the Scheme provided under Section 3-G (5) of Act 1956 will not get wiped out.
5. In view of above, relief prayed for by petitioner in present writ petition cannot be granted as the forum prayed for by petitioner for adjudication of his dispute, i.e. Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority is not competent to examine correctness of award delivered by Competent Authority under Section 3-G (1) of Act, 1956. In the present case, petitioner has remedy to take up matter under Section 3- G (5) of Act 1956 before authority mentioned therein. It shall be open to petitioner to avail aforesaid remedy.
6. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail aforesaid remedy under Section 3-G (5) of Act, 1956.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 YK