AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Behura, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client’s land was acquired under National Highways Act, 1956. The competent authority had purported to determine the amount of compensation, against which his client sought reference by arbitration, for enhancement. The reference resulted in direction of remand. On remand the competent authority made a determination, not acceptable to his client. His client again applied for enhancement by the arbitrator. The arbitrator by impugned order dated 14th December, 2022 rejected the application. He seeks interference.
Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and submits, the writ petition is not maintainable.
It appears from impugned order that the arbitrator rejected petitioner’s claim for enhancement as the Competent Authority Land Acquisition (CALA) had written letter dated 30th October, 2019, found by the arbitrator to show that CALA had already computed plot wise and paid compensation as per the new acquisition Act of 2013.
On query from Court Mr. Behura submits, impugned order cannot be said to be an award as there was refusal to exercise jurisdiction by the arbitrator.
Issue notice along with this order on opposite party no.1 by registered/speed post with AD. Petitioner will put in requisites.
List on 5th April, 2023.
.…………………………….