Sri Khudiram Debnath & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3809 Cal

15.07.2021
rc/ct.no.10
Item No.25


                                WPA No. 1196 of 2020
                            Sri Khudiram Debnath & Ors.
                                        Versus
                           The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                              (VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE)


                    Mr. Partha Pratim Roy            ...for the petitioner

                    Mr. Soumitra Bandhopadhyay
                    Mr. Ramchandra Guchhait               ...for the State

                    Mrs. Monika Roy                       ...for the NHAI


                    The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the

              enhanced compensation in respect of the subject premises

              which has been acquired by the respondents.

The petitioner submits that the nature of the land of

the petitioner is Viti and hence the petitioner is entitled to

an enhanced rate of compensation than what has been

awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner relies on a

judgment of this Court in MAT No. 1257 of 2018 to

contend that the petitioner is entitled to a higher rate of

compensation.

Mrs. Monika Roy, Advocate appearing on behalf of

the National Highway Authority of India (in short, "NHAI")

raises an objection as to the maintainability of the writ

petition and submits that in view of the fact that an award

has been passed in respect of the subject premises the

only remedy which the petitioner can avail of to file an

application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award. She also

disputes the fact that the subject land is viti land.

Mr. Soumitra Bandhopadhyay, Advocate appearing

on behalf of the State, submits that the petitioner has

received the entire compensation and is now estopped from

challenging the same. He further submits that the writ

petition is not maintainable. He also submits that the

petitioner has an adequate alternative statutory remedy.

I have heard the parties. It is an admitted fact that

the final award under Section 3 of the National Highways

Act, 1956 has been passed and the petitioner had

participated in such proceedings.

It appears that the grievance of the petitioner is now

being raised for the first time and had not been raised

before the Arbitrator.

The decision cited by the petitioner is

distinguishable and inapposite to the facts of this case.

In view of the alternative efficacious statutory

remedy available to the petitioner I am not inclined to

entertain this writ petition.

WPA No. 1196 of 2020 stands dismissed.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the

alternative efficacious remedy, if so advised.

(Ravi Krishan Kapur,J)