Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31382 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shankar Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer to :-
(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 26.10.2018 filed by the petitioners for awarding compensation equal to 4 time of circle rate determined by the District Magistrate in respect to Khata No. 469 area 0.0870 hectare acquired by the respondents in view of provision of "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013".
(b) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(c) award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
Upon perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents appended thereto, it transpires that petitioners' land was acquired and award was made on 14.9.2018, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, but since the amount of compensation was not acceptable to the petitioners, they filed an application/representation under Section 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for determination of the compensation on 26.10.2018, copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, before the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Prayagraj, who has been appointed as Arbitrator by the Central Government for the purpose of Section 3 G (5) of the Act but despite lapse of about one year, the petitioners' application/representation has not been decided till date.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 29-A of The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that the award should be made within a period of one year from the date the Arbitral Tribunal enters upon the reference. Hence, a direction be issued to the respondent no. 2 to decide the application/representation filed by the petitioners before him before the expiry of the statutory period prescribed under Section 29-A of the Act.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the application/representation filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 2 on 26.10.2018 (Annexure No. 3) does not appear to have been filed u/s 3 G (5) of the Act. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, we find that primarily the grievance of the petitioners is that the compensation awarded to the petitioners vide award dated 14.09.2018 (Annexure No. 2) is not acceptable to them and accordingly, they filed an application/representation on 26.10.2018 (Annexure No. 3) before the respondent no. 2 with a prayer for enhancing the compensation. Although technically the petitioner's application/representation does not appear to be u/s 3 G (5) of the Act but considering the recitals made by the petitioners in their application/representation and the prayer made therein, we find that the petitioners primarily want that the compensation be determined u/s 3 G (5) of the Act as the compensation awarded to them by the competent authority is not acceptable to them. Hence, we do not find it proper to dismiss the petition on the technical objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel.
Under the facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh appropriate application/representation u/s 3 G (5) of the Act before the respondent no. 2 along with certified copy of this order.
In case any such application/representation is moved by the petitioners before the respondent no. 2 within a period of one month from today, he shall consider and decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent no. 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such application/representation.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 KS