Satyaveer Singh vs State Of U P And 3 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 4797 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15028 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Satyaveer Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

Heard Shri Arun K. Singh Deshwal, holding brief of Shri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State - respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5.

The petitioner, in this writ petition, is seeking a direction to the respondents to determine the competent authority to register the case under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and direct such authority, either in the District - Moradabad or in the District - Rampur, to consider the application/objection for setting aside the award dated 13.11.2018 made by the District Magistrate, Rampur under section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of Arazi No. 44 area 0.300 hectare situated at Village - Mundiya, near Mankara, Tehsil - Bilaspur, District - Rampur. According to him, half portion of the said plot, namely, an area 0.1650 hectare, was acquired in proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 for construction of highway. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made his award on 18.10.2016 awarding the petitioner a compensation of Rs. 15,15,520/- @ of Rs. 8 lacs per hectare. Aggrieved by the amount so awarded, the petitioner filed his objections under section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the concerned authority and Case No. 1026 of 2017 (Satyaveer Singh Vs. National Highway Authority) was registered before the District Magistrate / Arbitrator, Rampur.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the compensation had been determined according to the rate list of the year 2012; whereas, the compensation of the land should have been determined according to the rate list of the year 2015-16 with effect from 01.01.2016, i.e., @ of Rs. 64 lacs per hectare. The District Magistrate/Arbitrator, Rampur rejected the petitioner's application dated 13.11.2018.

Aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2018, the petitioner, it is stated, applied before the Presiding Officer (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority), Moradabad on 25.02.2019, but the said Authority at Moradabad declined to register the case of the petitioner on the ground that the land is situate in District - Rampur and only the Authority, within the jurisdiction of District - Rampur, had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner, on 28.02.2019, filed objections to the order dated 13.11.2018 before the District & Sessions Judge, Rampur under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, but the Office of the District & Sessions Judge, Rampur also declined to register the case on the ground of jurisdiction, stating that the Government of Uttar Pradesh had determined Moradabad as the district for determination of matters falling within the jurisdiction of the District - Rampur. Hence, the present writ petition.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the notification dated December 3, 2015 issued under section 51, sub-sections (1) & (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act, 2013'), Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition, the Land Acquisition & Resettlement Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh have been determined as mentioned in the Schedule and for the District - Rampur, the Authority has been stated to be the Authority situate at Moradabad.

Learned counsel for the parties, however, submitted that the Act, 2013 does not apply to the National Highways Act, 1956. It is stated that the National Highways Act, 1956 is included in the Fourth Schedule of the Act, 2013 and section 105 of the Act, 2013 clearly provides that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3). Sub-section (3) of section 105 of the Act, 2013 provides that the Central Government shall, by notification within one year from the date of commencement of the Act, 2013, direct that any of the provisions of the Act, 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement. The provisions of section 105 of the Act, 2013 read as under:-

"105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications.?

(1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.

(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the issue of the notification or both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification, the notification shall not be issued or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament."

We find that so far no notification has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 105 of the Act, 2013 with regard to the National Highways Act, 1956 and therefore, by virtue of the provisions of section 105, sub-section (1) of the Act, 2013, it must necessarily be held that the Act, 2013 has no application to the National Highways Act, 1956.

That being the stated legal position, we find that the notification dated December 3, 2015 issued under section 51, sub-sections (1) & (2) of the Act, 2013, notifying the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority at Moradabad for the District of Rampur, has no application to a case of acquisition for the purposes of National Highway under The National Highways Act, 1956.

The question, then, would arise as to which of the Authorities, either at Rampur or at Moradabad, would have the jurisdiction to entertain an objection under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996?

There is no dispute between the parties that the land in question is situate in the District - Rampur. The award was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Rampur on 18.10.2016. The District Magistrate/Arbitrator, Rampur rejected the petitioner's application vide order dated 13.11.2018. Therefore, we find that the entire cause of action has accrued to the petitioner within the District - Rampur.

Therefore, in our opinion, when the Act, 2013 has no application to the proceedings under The National Highways Act, 1956 and likewise, the notification of December 3, 2015 would also have no application to the proceedings under The National Highways Act, 1956, therefore, the District & Sessions Judge, Rampur would have jurisdiction to entertain an application/objection of the petitioner filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Under sub-section (6) of section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956, arbitration proceedings under sub-section (5) of section 3-G of the Act, 1956 would be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the District & Sessions Judge, Rampur to entertain the application/objections of the petitioner under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 21.5.2019

Amit Mishra