The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj v. District Sahibganj
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 2914 of 2023 Md. Salim Akhtar, aged about 41 years, S/o Ahammad Sahav, resident of Village Pataura, P.O. & P.S. Udhwa, District Sahibganj Petitioner … … 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, Versus District Sahibganj 3. The Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj 4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj 5. The Director (Project), National Highways Authority of India, NH- 80, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj 6. The Executive Engineer, National Highways Authority of India, Sahibganj Division, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj 7. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Sahibganj, Circle Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Stadium Road, District Sahibganj 8. The Additional Engineer, Building Construction Department, Sahibganj, Circle Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Stadium Road, District Sahibganj 9. The Junior Engineer, Building Construction Department, Sahibganj, Circle Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Stadium Road, District Sahibganj 10. The Circle Officer, Udhwa, P.O. & P.S. Udhwa, District … Respondents Sahibganj … CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents ---
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Abhishek Srowastava. Adv. : Ms. Sweety Topno, Advocate : Ms. Piyushita Meha Tudu, Adv. 04/20.07.2023 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “i. For quashing of the report dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure-9 series) duly submitted by the Junior Engineer, Building Construction, Department, Dumka Circle, Sahibganj (Respondent No. 9), on the direction Sahibganj of Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, (respondent No. 3), in light of the order dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure- 4) passed by Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 1648/2021, preferred by the petitioner for proper calculation & payment of monetary compensation against the land of petitioner acquired by N.H.A.I. ii. Upon quashing of order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure-9 series), direct upon the respondent authorities to make payment after a proper calculation of the property as well as the land over which the said 2 property belonging to the petitioner is situated under Mauza Pataura Seat 2, Thana no. 171, Circle Udhwa, Plot No. 1223, having an area of 45 feet X 15 Feet (675 sq. ft.), over which shop & residence of the petitioner is situated, which has been acquired by N.H.A.I. iii. For a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay statutory interest @ 18% as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Rakesh Kumar Jain & Another v. State of U.P. through Collector’ iv. For a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay legal cost & expenses to the petitioner as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others’.” 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Sahebganj and it has been stated that the Arbitration Case No. 05/2022-23 has been disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2023 in compliance to the order dated 22.12.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1648/2021 after considering the relevant reports of Building Construction Department and the petitioner has come up with a challenge to the said report without challenging the order passed by the Arbitrator. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was never served with a copy of the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2023, though he was participating in the proceedings and through the counter-affidavit, he has come to know about the order for the first time and therefore, I.A. No. 6250/2023 has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.03.2023. Another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6249/2023 has been filed for stay of Memo No. 1075 dated 15.07.2023 issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Sahebganj asking the petitioner to vacate the premises and accept the award. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that I.A. No. 6249/2023 and I.A. No. 6250/2023 be allowed and the report as well as the order dated 18.03.2023 be set-aside and the direction to evict be also set-aside. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 18.03.2023 has not been properly passed by the learned arbitrator and the report on the basis of which the arbitral award has been passed was also not worth consideration by the arbitrator. 6. It is not in dispute that the order dated 18.03.2023 has been passed pursuant to the order dated 22.12.2021 passed in WPC No. 1648 of 2021 whose operative portion reads as follows: - 3 “3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed for acquisition of the land in question, without entering into the merit of the case, he has been given liberty to prefer an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the Arbitrator appointed under the said. Act. On receipt of the said application, the Arbitrator shall consider the same and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall pass appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner within three months from the date of filing of the application.” 7. It is not in dispute that the award/order passed under the provisions of Section 3(G) is governed by the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and can be set-aside only in terms of the said Act, 1996. 8. The award having been passed, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief as has been prayed for by the petitioner in the main writ petition or in the interlocutory applications. 9. Considering the fact that no counter-affidavit has been filed to the interlocutory applications, wherein the petitioner has stated that he was never served with a copy of the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned arbitrator i.e. Respondent no.3 , this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner may approach the Respondent No.3 tomorrow i.e. 21.07.2023 at 1.00 P.M , who shall provide a signed copy of the order dated 18.03.2023 to the petitioner, if not already provided, so that the petitioner may take steps in accordance
Decision
with law. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)