Ashok v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioners have got alternative/statutory/efficacious recourse of preferring an application before the appropriate court seeking challenge to the impugned order/award dated 16.06.2018 2 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Arbitration Case…
Judgment
The Circle Officer, Chouparan, Hazaribagh… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR … Respondents For the Petitioners For the Respondents ----- : Mr. S.K. Murtty, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III ----- Order No. 06 Dated: 23.08.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.06.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh-cum-Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956, Hazaribagh in Arbitration Case No. 35/2017, whereby the petitioners’ application for enhancement of awarded amount of Rs.21,328/- and Rs.47,988/- as compensation with respect to acquisition of their land appertaining to Khata No. 02, Plot Nos. 526 and 519, measuring an area of 0.0200 and 0.0450 acre respectively under Mouza-Titahi, District-Hazaribagh, has been rejected.
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have got alternative/statutory/efficacious recourse of preferring an application before the appropriate court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order/award passed by the Act, 1996”) against the respondent no. 3.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioners have got alternative/statutory/efficacious recourse of preferring an application before the appropriate court seeking challenge to the impugned order/award dated 16.06.2018 2 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Arbitration Case No. 35/2017, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
The petitioners are, however, at liberty alternative/statutory/efficacious recourse under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 against the impugned order/award dated 16.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Arbitration Case No. 35/2017. Manish (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
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.