AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants and submits, the appeal is covered by order dated 11th March, 2022 passed by this Bench in ARBA no.2 of 2019 (Gadadhar Pal v. Union of India and others).
4. 1. Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants and submits, the appeal is covered by order dated 11th March, 2022 passed by this Bench in ARBA no.2 of 2019 (Gadadhar Pal v. Union of India and others).
Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of respondents and submits, facts in the case are different and therefore not covered by said order. He refers to impugned judgment dated 16th November, 2013, paragraphs 7 and 8 therein to point out that there was CBI inquiry against, inter alia, the Additional District Magistrate and submission was that there be declaration of exaggerated compensation fixed in 184 numbers of plots during 2nd September, 2004 to 16th December, 2004. He submits, accordingly recovery proceedings were initiated against the awardees. On query from Court, he is unable to point out any provision in either Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or National Highways Act, 1956 or Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contained therein regarding recovery on award as made on an exaggerated amount. On further query from Court Mr. Tripathy is unable to demonstrate that steps were taken by Union of India under section 34 in the 1996 Act to have those awards set aside.
Perused impugned judgment dated 16th November, 2013. It appears, appellants had produced evidence of similar pala kissam of land sold at Rs.14,00,000/- per acre on registered sale deed no.1657 dated 22nd May, 2001 but the Court below, inspite of referring to the document said, there is no evidence.
Impugned judgment is on the face of it erroneous. It is set aside in appeal. The claim for enhancement is restored to the arbitrator. It be dealt with expeditiously.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of.Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of respondents and submits, facts in the case are different and therefore not covered by said order. He refers to impugned judgment dated 16th November, 2013, paragraphs 7 and 8 therein to point out that there was CBI inquiry against, inter alia, the Additional District Magistrate and submission was that there be declaration of exaggerated compensation fixed in 184 numbers of plots during 2nd September, 2004 to 16th December, 2004. He submits, accordingly recovery proceedings were initiated against the awardees. On query from Court, he is unable to point out any provision in either Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or National Highways Act, 1956 or Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contained therein regarding recovery on award as made on an exaggerated amount. On further query from Court Mr. Tripathy is unable to demonstrate that steps were taken by Union of India under section 34 in the 1996 Act to have those awards set aside.
Perused impugned judgment dated 16th November, 2013. It appears, appellants had produced evidence of similar pala kissam of land sold at Rs.14,00,000/- per acre on registered sale deed no.1657 dated 22nd May, 2001 but the Court below, inspite of referring to the document said, there is no evidence.
Impugned judgment is on the face of it erroneous. It is set aside in appeal. The claim for enhancement is restored to the arbitrator. It be dealt with expeditiously.
The appeal is allowed and disposed of.
............................................