THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. (REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition stands dismissed, with liberty being given to the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above Section 3G(6) of the National Highways Act, 1956, it is clear that the petitioners would have to approach the District Judge in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if they are aggrieved with the…
- Para 77. The writ petition stands dismissed, with liberty being given to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, as per law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H ALAMGIR Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA Date : 21-11-2022 ORDER
Heard Mr. AH Alamgir, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the petitioners’ lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 @ Rs. 1.5 lakhs per bigha. The petitioners being aggrieved went before an Arbitrator, i.e., the Divisional Commissioner, Barak Valley, Division, for enhancement of the rate of compensation. However, the Arbitrator did not enhance the rate of compensation. The petitioners being aggrieved, have approached this Court, challenging the Award made by the Divisional Commissioner, Barak Valley, Division.
Mr. D Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, Ms. S Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, Ms. R Devi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 7 submit that the writ petition should be dismissed, inasmuch as, there is an alternative remedy available by following the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides that if the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority under sub- Page No.# 9/9 section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, an application may be made by either of the parties, to be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. In the present case, the land of the petitioners is situated at Rongpur Part-III, in which case, the Arbitrator is the Divisional Commissioner, Barak Valley, Division.
Section 3G(6) provides that subject to the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should apply to every arbitration under this Act.
In view of the above Section 3G(6) of the National Highways Act, 1956, it is clear that the petitioners would have to approach the District Judge in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if they are aggrieved with the decision/Award of the Arbitrator
In view of there being an alternative remedy available, this Court does not find any ground to entertain this case any longer.
Operative part
The writ petition stands dismissed, with liberty being given to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, as per law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands dismissed, with liberty being given to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
National Highways Act, 1956; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 21 Nov 2022.
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.