Yogendra Yadav And 4 Others v. Union Of India And 4 Others
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Jan 2023
Outcome
Withdrawn
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 34, 37
Judgment
Petitioner :- Yogendra Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravin Kumar Srivastava, Hemant Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashok Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal, Piyush Tripathi Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Sri Piyush Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.1. The petitioners herein claim to be tenure holders of plot no.1407 and 1408 area 0.069 Hectare situated in village Muradpur Kotila, Pargana Rari, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur which have been acquired for widening of National Highway-56. herein raised a dispute It is admitted fact of the matter that the competent authority had determined the compensation by declaration of award in terms of Section 3G of the National Highways Act.
It appears that the petitioners regarding determination/disbursement of the compensation over certain property attached to the earth, allegedly existing on Gata No. 1407 and this fact is mentioned in the representation dated 15.5.2017 filed by the petitioner before the competent authority. The said representation/objection has been rejected vide order dated 21.3.2018 by the Chief Revenue Officer/competent authority which is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. It is evident that the petitioners had approached the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and further under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case before the Court of the District Judge, Jaunpur was registered as Misc. Case No. 128 of 2018 and has been decided vide order dated 19.7.2022. The application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act indicates that the challenge was made to be Arbitrator's award dated 15.9.2015 and the order dated 21.3.2018 passed by the Competent Authority.
Operative part
The said application has been rejected on the ground of delay by order the dated 19.7.2022. Be that as it may, the issue raised by the petitioners herein has been raised in the aforesaid application under the Arbitration Act. This petition is nothing but a second round of litigation. The appropriate course for the petitioners was to challenge the order passed by the competent Court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted permission to withdraw the present writ petition as he seeks to challenge the impugned order in appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Order Date :- 18.1.2023 P.P. POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 34, 37.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 18 Jan 2023.
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.