WP(C) No. 828 of 2021 · Tripura High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of above, the present writ petition stands disposed of
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 decision of the authority not to refer the case of petitioner to arbitrator 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.
Issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why records relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings shall not be sent for before this Hon’ble Court from the custody of respondent No.3 for rendering substantial justice quashing the order dated 20.02.2016 in Arbitration case No.03/AR/BLG/2016, contained in Annexure-8A of the writ petition. iv. Upon hearing the parties, rule may be made absolute in terms of prayer Nos. (I), (II) and (III) 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. The petitioner was awarded a meager amount as a result he received the same to the land 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,
1956. But no appropriate action has been taken by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court and by filing counter the respondent has disclosed that arbitration proceeding has been concluded on
Operative part
20.02.2016. 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, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner with regard to the enhancement of the compensation amount in accordance with law. In view of above submission, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the enhanced amount has already been paid to the petitioner and nothing survives in this petition for adjudication with regard to the subject property. However, with regard to the other extent of the properties belonging to the petitioner with which the matter has not been considered by the arbitrator for enhancing the compensation, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate recourse available under the law. In terms of above, the present petition stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) A. Ghosh
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of above, the present writ petition stands disposed of
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.