WP(C) No. 826 of 2021 · Tripura High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
present petition stands disposed of direction the respondents to refer the matter
Provisions considered
Judgment
: Mr. T. D. Majumder, Sr. Advocate. Mr. T. Halam, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A. Mr. D. Deb, Advocate. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 19/12/2022 Heard. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: i. Issue rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari like nature shall not be issued sending for records relevant to the subject matter of proceedings for rendering conscionable justice for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2016 in the arbitration proceedings and to remit the matter for afresh hearing as per provision of Section-3G of National Highway Act, 1956 affording opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. ii. Issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to they shall not be directed to refer the matter of the petitioner for higher compensation to the Arbitrator for fresh proceedings forthwith. iii. Upon hearing the parties rule be made absolute in terms of prayer as above.” The case of the petitioner is that for the purpose of building (widening/four laining etc.) maintenance and operation of NH-44 in the stretch of length from 14.375 km to 38.950 km Agartala-Udaipur Section, the land owned and possessed of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents. The petitioner was awarded a meager amount as a result she received the same with protest and requested to refer the matter under Section-18 of the L.A. Act. The petitioner after waiting about 3-4 years visited the office of the respondent and as per verbal instruction of the respondent, the petitioner filed an application under Section-64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Restatement Act, 2013, but no response has been given from the L.A. Collector. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under RTI Act about status of their case and in reply to the RTI, the respondent informed that L.A. Act is not applicable for acquisition done under National Highway Act, 1956. Thereafter, the petitioner requested to the respondent for invoking arbitration clause as per provision of Section-3G of National Highway Act,
Operative part
1956. But no appropriate action from the respondent has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court and by filing counter the respondent has disclosed that arbitration proceeding has been concluded on 20.02.2016. The petitioner has withdrawn the said petition with a liberty to file afresh. The petitioner has urged before this Court to quash the arbitration proceeding dated 20.02.2016 which was not adjudicated as per law and without giving reasonable opportunities to the petitioner. In view of above, it is seen that an application has been filed by the petitioner seeking reference before the concerned authority since; his is aggrieved by the amount as has been fixed towards the compensation. Thus, the present petition stands disposed of direction the respondents to refer the matter to the concerned authorities and decide the same by fixing a fair compensation as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed in terms of the above. A. Ghosh CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: present petition stands disposed of direction the respondents to refer the matter
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Restatement Act, 2013; Right to Information Act, 2005; 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.