Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24509 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Siddhu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta,Girijesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead "National Highways Authority of India, through Project Director, Meerut" as respondent no. 4.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that the amount of compensation awarded to him u/s 3 G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 in lieu of acquisition of his land by the respondents for the purpose of road widening is inadequate and hence, the instant writ petition is being filed by the petitioner with the following prayer to :-
I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to pay the amount of compensation with interest of the land acquired of petitioner as per market value applicable in the year 2015-16 (annexure no. 3 to the writ petition) on the basis of location of area of the land.
II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the last representation of petitioner dated 08.01.2019 (annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) within a shortest period which this Hon'ble Court may direct in the interest of justice.
III. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
IV. award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 submitted that in case, the petitioner is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him u/s 3 G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, he has got a statutory alternative remedy available to him u/s 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the legal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as the annexures appended thereto. Section 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 clearly stipulates that where the amount awarded u/s 3 G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is not acceptable to either of the parties, the compensation shall be re-determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the settled law on the application of either of the parties. He has further informed us that the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad has been appointed as an arbitrator by the Central Government for dealing with the application u/s 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an application u/s 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the respondent no. 2 along with the certified copy of this order within a period of two weeks from today.
In case any such application is filed by the petitioner before respondent no. 2 within the period indicated hereinabove, he shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of filing of such application after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 KS