Also heard Ms . R. Goswami v. Nos. 1 and 2
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
The matter is remanded back to the Commission
Provisions considered
Judgment
(cid:28)Heard both the parties on 13-12-2011. The views expressed by all the parties pr esent in the hearing were taken into consideration. The claim of the petitioner for enhancement of the Zeerat value is not consonance with the National Highway Act, 1956. Hence the claim is rejected. Sd/- (Shri U. Sharma, IAS) Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati (cid:29) From the aforesaid order, nothing is discernable as to why the claim of the peti tioner in not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. In the opinion of th is Court, without entering into the question as to whether the petitioner should have availed the remedy as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Con ciliation Act, 1996, I am of the view that since the Commissioner was adjudicati ng a claim for higher compensation of the petitioner on account of the acquisiti on of their land, the Commissioner ought to have passed a reasoned order in the matter. In view of the above, the order dated 12-01-2012 is interfered herewith. The sam e is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Commission er, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati to pass a fresh and a reasoned order in the m atter in accordance with law. Writ petition stands disposed of.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The matter is remanded back to the Commission
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
National Highways Act, 1956; Conciliation Act, 1996; National Highways Act; National Highway Act, 1956.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.