Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the first respond net in A.C. No. 297 dated 4- 12-2006, and quash the said proceedigns by holding them as illegal and contrary to the provisions of national Highways Act, 1956 as amended in 2002 and consequentially direct the respondents to pay compensation to the acquired proeprty from the petitioners and pass such othr order or orders the Honourable Court deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.S.VARMA (ADDL CGSC) T he Court made t he following :
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ of certiorari to call for records of 1st respondent in A.C.No.297, dated 4.12.2006 and quash the said proceedings by holding them as illegal and contrary to the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 as amended in 2002 and consequently direct the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the acquired property. The properties owned by the petitioners came to be acquired under National Highways Act, 1956, as amended in 2002, in widening NH.5 in Prakasam District. The competent authority fixed the compensation at Rs.3,000/- per square yard in addition to other benefits. The petitioners dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation requested for referring the matter to the arbitrator as provided under clause 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. Accordingly, the District Collector has been appointed as an arbitrator and the matter was referred to the District Collector for adjudication with regard to fixing of proper compensation.
The petitioners placed on record their claim statement. They also enclosed documents in support of their claims. The arbitrator proceeded to confirm the rate fixed by the competent authority by an order dated 4.12.2006. The order passed by the arbitrator is under challenge in this writ petition. Rule nisi came to be issued on 7.6.2007. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st respondent-arbitrator without considering the claim statement made by the petitioners and also the documents enclosed thereto proceeded to confirm the market value fixed by the competent authority and therefore it amounts to non- application of mind which is a valid ground to set aside the order impugned in this writ petition. To buttress his submission, learned counsel placed on record the claim statement filed before the arbitrator.
They also referred Xerox copies of registered documents dated 5.8.2004 to substantiate their claim that the market value fixed by the competent authority is far below the market value. The arbitrator without referring to the claim statement and also the documents filed along with the claim statement proceeded to confirm the value fixed by the competent authority. In my considered view, non-consideration of the material placed on record is valid ground to set aside the order impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned in this writ petition and the matter is remanded back to the Collector/Arbitrator to pass order afresh after giving due opportunity to both the parties. No costs. 4th September, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3397 OF 2007 4T H SEPTEMBER, 2008.
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.