AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Since all the captioned writ petitions involve a common question of law and are founded on similar facts and circumstances, they have been clubbed together, heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
For the sake of convenience and clarity, WPC No.1485/2019 has been treated as the lead case and the facts of the said petition are being referred to for the purpose of adjudication. The decision rendered herein shall, however, govern the connected writ petitions as well, as the issues raised therein are identical in nature.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.176 admeasuring area 1247 sq.meter situated at Village Parsathi Tehsil Abhanpur District Raipur. The said land of the petitioner was acquired vide award dated 21.6.2015 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.01(2)/A-82, Year 2014-15, Village Parsathi P.H.N.18 Tahsil Abhanpur District Raipur (CG) by the competent Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur (CG). The petitioner’s land comprising 1247 sq. meter was acquired, for which he was awarded Rs.16,82,577/-. For 460 sq. meter of land, he was awarded Rs.42,07,344/- and for 470 square meter, Rs.42,98,808/- was awarded. The grievance of the petitioner is that for more land, less compensation was given and for less land, more compensation was given.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the petitioners in the course of acquiring their properties for the purpose of construction of respective National Highways. According to the petitioners, the authorities have not applied proper multiplier while quantifying the compensation. Similarly, the authorities concerned have applied different yardsticks for similar nature of properties lying adjacent to each other and in the process, different rates of compensation have been given to different owners which also is arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the Respondent- NHAI submits that the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy under Section 3(G) (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short “the Act of 1956”) to redress their grievance before the Arbitrator. He further submits that this Court while dealing with a similar issue in WPC No.2207/2020 (Puriram Kashyap and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) has relegated the petitioners therein/affected land owners to the Arbitrator under Section 3(G) (5) of the Act of 1956. The said view also affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No.423/2020 vide order dated 12.3.2021 and the appellants therein were granted liberty to raise dispute in terms of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 before the Arbitrator to decide the dispute at the earliest in accordance with law keeping in mind the order passed by this Court in WA No.7 of 2019 (Ashutosh Agarwal and another Vs. Union of India and others). In the said Writ Appeal, this Court was faced with the following questions :
(f)If there is patent arbitrariness in the ‘decision making process’ and the decision taken, should the party be relegated to the remedy by way of Arbitration and whether the course pursued by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be justified; more so, where there is no disputed question of fact ?
(g)Is the alternate remedy a bar of law, or rule of convenience ?”
The Division Bench of this Court in para 17 held as under:-
17.After hearing both the sides and also in view of the precedents cited from both the sides, we do not have any doubt to hold that power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is even wider of the power of the Apex Court under Article 32 cannot be curtailed by any statute. The existence of alternate remedy is more a 'rule of convenience' and the parties would be relegated to pursue such remedy, under normal circumstances. But if special circumstances are involved or whether the proceeding under challenge is per se arbitrary and illegal or if it has resulted in total miscarriage of justice, the discretionary power vested in this Court to have the matter considered under Article 226 is always there, to be invoked. In view of the particular nature of challenge raised and the factual position demonstrated by the Appellants, resulting in payment of higher compensation to an adjoining / identical property having a lesser extent/area while awarding only a lower amount to the Appellants (merely for the reason that the property involved is having a higher extent) cannot but be held as an arbitrary exercise and we find it appropriate to have it considered by this Court. The question is answered in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents.”
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents annexed with the petition(s), this Court finds that the acquisition of the properties in the present case is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1956. Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 reads as under:
“3G(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.”
On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that when the competent authority decides the amount of compensation for acquired land and if the landowner is dissatisfied with that amount, he can apply for arbitration. In the present case, since there are considerable number of petitioners whose properties situated at different places have been acquired and who are aggrieved by the multiplier applied in the process of quantifying the compensation, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is one which needs to be dealt with individually by raising an appropriate individual dispute by each of the petitioners before the Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 3 G (5) of the Act of 1956.
Accordingly, subject to the petitioners’ approaching the Arbitrator, it is expected that the Arbitrator shall take into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh as mentioned above and also other guidelines and parameters that have been laid down for the purpose of quantifying compensation. It is also expected that the Arbitrator shall decide the same objectively by passing a speaking order. All the petitioners are directed to raise their dispute individually before the Arbitrator in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the Arbitrator is expected to take a decision at the earliest preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioners.
It is observed that Counsel for the respective respondents will assist Counsel for the petitioners with regard to appointment of Arbitrator.
With the aforesaid observations / directions, all the Writ Petition stand disposed of.