AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, CWP-19217-2023 and CWP-30837-2025 are hereby adjudicated as common questions of law and facts are involved. For the sake of convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-19217-2023.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a dispute with respect to the nature of land. The Collector initially assessed the value of land treating it as non-agricultural. There was a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, who sought a report from his subordinate and opined that the land was actually agricultural in nature and the land-owner in connivance with the Collector had wrongly got it assessed as non-agricultural land. During the pendency of present petitions, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Bureau to find out factual position. Learned senior counsel submits that as per the report of the Vigilance Bureau, the land in question was not agricultural.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in CWP-30837-2025 is claiming that the land of petitioner was agricultural land and it was wrongly assessed as non-agricultural.
This Court has directed the Vigilance Bureau to conduct an enquiry. This Court cannot decide disputed questions of facts. The compensation has to be paid by N.H.A.I, which is disputing the assessment made by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) and has filed an objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, after availing the remedy to approach the Arbitrator.
As the matter is pending before the District Judge, in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, there seems no reason to issue further directions.
Both petitions stand disposed of.
Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.