Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Tammana Bharathi, vs The Arbitrator District Collector on 12 November, 2024
APHC010037122007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3506]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION NO: 21666/2007
Between:
Smt. Tammana Bharathi, ...PETITIONER
AND
The Arbitrator District Collector and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.A S C BOSE
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
2.S.S.VARMA
The Court made the following order:
The present writ petition is filed questioning the order
passed by the 1st respondent in D.Dis.No.2723/2004/G1, dated
09.09.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural
justice and contrary to the provisions of the National High Ways
Act, 1956.
2
2. Heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for petitioner,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for
respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Akhil Krishnan, learned counsel,
representing on behalf of Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing
Counsel for 3rd respondent.
3. (a) The petitioner states that she and her husband are
the owners of an extent of Acres 5.39 cents situated at
Yetturullapadu Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District,
wherein she has set up weighbridge under the name and style
'Sri Shirdi Saibaba Weigh Bridge' in an extent of Acres 1.09
cents, which was being run since 07.06.2001.
(b) That being so, the 3rd respondent acquired an extent of
Acres 0.41 cents of petitioner's land falling in S.Nos.60/21A, 21B,
22A, 22B2, 23A, 23B, 24A2, 24A3, 24B2, 64/12A, 64/10B/2B,
64/12B2 of Yetturullapadu Village, for the purpose of widening the
NH-5 into 4/6 lines.
(c) Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has issued notification
under Section 3A(1) of National Highways Act (herein after,
'N.H. Act') on 07.08.2001 and thereafter, the same was approved
under Section 3D of N.H. Act on 28.02.2002. The same was
3
followed by an award inquiry and an award No.11/02, dated
06.08.2002 was passed determining compensation of ₹3,71,536/-
for the affected land along with structures. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid fixation of compensation, the petitioner approached the
1st respondent under Section 3(5) for enhancement of
compensation. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that the
land under acquisition ought to have been compensated by
computing the value of the land on square yard basis rather than
acrage basis and in support of the said claim, relied on various
sale deeds executed with reference to the vicinity of the lands
under Acquisition and claimed ₹100/- per square yard. Further,
the petitioner also made claim on account of loss of business as
the weighbridge which was in operation over the affected land
was to be dismantled and removed. On these two counts, the
petitioner has sought for enhancement of compensation.
(d) The 1st respondent by order dated 09.09.2007 rejected the
petition filed under Section 3G(5) of N.H. Act confirming the order
passed by the 2nd respondent fixing the compensation.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
order passed by the 1st respondent does not provide any reasons
on the objections/contentions raised by the petitioner for
enhancement of compensation and merely confirms the order
passed by the 2nd respondent, which is completely illegal and
lacks proper application of mind. Learned counsel, while drawing
to the attention of objections submitted on 04.10.2002, which
were communicated by registered post and receipt of which is
confirmed by the postal department under Ex.P.7 and also the
grounds raised in support of the petition filed under Section 3G(5)
of N.H. Act, would submit that the impugned order either advert or
deal with any of the said contentions, rather the
1st respondent simply confirmed the order of 2nd respondent. As
no reasons are recorded, the petitioner instead of availing the
remedy of approaching the District Court under Section 34 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in terms of Section 3G(6)
of N.H. Act, preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, assailing the order of 1st respondent. In
support of the same, the petitioner relies on the division bench
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in
National Highway Authority of India v. Resham Singh and
5
others1, wherein Paragraph No.70 reads as under:
"70. When the statutory authority/State instrumentality like
NHAI acts arbitrarily and unreasonably and does not follow
a binding precedent of this Court in M/s.Golden Iron and
Steel Forgings [MANU/PH/2039/2008] and that of the
Supreme Court in Sunita Mehra [MANU/SC/1084/2016 :
2019 (17) SCC 672] and denies to land owners relief of
solatium and interest akin to those under Section 23(2) and
section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is a
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and this
Court is entitled to invoke its plenary power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and grant relief to the
landowners."
In view of the above, it is prayed that the order of
1st respondent be set aside and the matter be remanded back for
reconsideration.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader representing on
behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and learned standing counsel
representing on behalf of the 3rd respondent would primarily
contend that against the orders passed by 1st respondent, there is
alternative remedy provided under Section 3G(6) of N.H. Act and
that the petitioner instead of filing the same has preferred the
present writ petition. In support of the said contention, they
1 2023 LawSuit(P&H) 312 = MANU/PH/0601/2023
6
placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gadde Deepthi
v. The Union of India2. Further they contend that the
1st respondent has besides elaborately discussing the respective
pleas taken by both petitioner and the opposing party therein, has
given opportunity of hearing and passed the impugned order
confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent and therefore,
the same cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural
justice or there is a lack of application of mind. The reasons
given by 2nd respondent - Land Acquisition Officer in the process
of determining the compensation has been accepted and
confirmed by 1st respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that
order passed by 1st respondent lacks any reasons and prays that
the writ petition be dismissed.
6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions.
7. No doubt, the order passed by 1st respondent does not
indicate any reasons in confirming the order passed by the
2nd respondent fixing the compensation and neither there is an
advertence to specific contentions raised by the petitioner nor
deal with the same when the 1st respondent was required to
consider each and every document and material pleaded and
2 W.P. No.22053 of 2018
7
placed before it for the purpose of enhancement of
compensation. For better understanding, the portion of the order
of 1st respondent which really considers the matter reads as
under:
"Having regard to the facts, and the circumstances of the
case I find that there is no reason to interfere with the
orders of the Competent Authority and am of the opinion
that the Competent Authority has rightly fixed the
compensation as per the relevant rules. As such the
following orders are hereby made.
ORDER:
The compensation amount fixed by the
Competent Authority is just and reasonable and there
is no need to enhance the compensation amount."
The above extracted portion of the impugned order
definitely would not stand the scrutiny of judicious approach by
the 1st respondent in deciding application under Section 3G(5) of
NH Act. Having said that, under the scheme of Act against any
order passed by 1st respondent whether rejecting enhancement of
compensation or grant of partial compensation, the aggrieved
party has a remedy of invoking Section 3G(6) of N.H. Act,
whereunder can file COP under Section 34 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 before the competent District Court. The
petitioner rather preferring such petition under Section 34 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has straightaway filed the
present writ petition. Nowhere in the grounds raised in support of
writ petition, there is any contention that the order passed by
1st respondent is without reasons nor lacks application of mind
but rather the grounds raised are on merits of the matter. Though
the petitioner placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble High Court
of Punjab and Haryana to buttress the argument that alternative
remedy is no bar for entertaining writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that the said judgment
was rendered in the contest of denial of statutory benefits under
Sections 23(2) and 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas the
present case falls under completely different spectrum which is
confined to the aspect of appreciation of material facts on record
for the purpose of enhancement of compensation. So, the said
judgment cannot be applied in same force. On the other hand,
this Court in W.P. No.22053 of 2018, had taken a view that when
there is a remedy of approaching the jurisdictional District Court
under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
which court shall be more competent to deal with both oral and
documentary evidence to be placed on record by the parties for
the purpose of determining the correctness or otherwise of
compensation awarded under the award, which is more
efficacious, entertaining writ petition and venturing into the said
exercise by this Court would be unwarranted.
7. In the light of the above findings, this Court is not inclined
to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India rather relegating the petitioner to avail remedy under
Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and liberty is
granted to the petitioner to avail the said remedy and as petitioner
has been diligently pursuing the matter before this Court, the
period during which the writ petition is pending shall be
considered for the purpose of exclusion under Section 14 of
Limitation Act.
8. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending
consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
_______________________
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J
12.11.2024
SS
