Bombay High Court
Seemabai B. Saoji (Deceased) Thr. ... vs The National Highway Authority Of ... on 21 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
2-MCA-809-22.odt 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.809 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8506 OF 2019
Seemabai Bhaiyyalal Saoji (since deceased) Thr. Harish Ravindra Saoji and ors.
-vs-
The National Highway Authority of India, Dwarka, New Delhi and ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. D. Dhande, Advocate for applicants.
Shri A. A. Kathane, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for non-applicant Nos.3 and 4/State.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATE : April 21, 2023
P. C.
1. Admit. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The applicants' land came be acquired under the provisions of National
Highways Act, 1956 (for short, the said Act). It is their grievance that
the Arbitrator failed to grant the benefit of solatium to them while
passing the award. The applicants thereafter filed a reference under
Section 3G(5) of the said Act and the Additional Collector partly
enhanced the amount of compensation. Since the Arbitrator failed to
award the amount of solatium, Writ Petition No.8506/2019 came to be
filed praying that the respondents be directed to pay solatium along
with interest. For that purpose the applicants relied on the judgment in
2438/2013 (Kishor s/o Shankarrao Choudhari vs. Union of India and
ors.) that arose from the acquisition proceedings under the same
Notification.
2-MCA-809-22.odt 2/2
3. By order dated 03/10/2022, the writ petition was not entertained on
the ground that the prayer made in the writ petition could be
prosecuted in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence review of this order is sought in view of
the judgment in Rishabhkumar vs. Secretary tot he Government of
India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways... (2022) 1 Bom CR
659, wherein it has been held that in proceedings under Section 34 of
the Act of 1996, the award as passed by the Arbitrator cannot be
modified.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the writ
petition was not entertained on merits. By holding that the prayer for
grant of solatium could be prosecuted under Section 34 of the Act of
1996, we find that said course would not be open for the applicants in
the light of the decision in Rishabhkumar (supra). The writ petition will
therefore have to be entertained on merits.
5. Hence for aforesaid reasons, the order dated 03/10/2022 is recalled.
Writ Petition No.8506/2019 is restored to file. It is clarified that it is
open for the respondents to raise all permissible defences.
6. Misc. Civil Application is allowed and disposed of. No costs.
(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
Asmita
