Susanta Sarkar vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4879 Cal

   18
16.09.2021
 Ct. No.10
   b.das


                             W.P.A. 13640 of 2021

                           (Via Video Conference)


                         Susanta Sarkar
                                Vs.
                         Union of India & Ors.

                   Mr. Amit Pan
                   Ms. T. Santra                 ...for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Susovan Sengupta
                   Ms. Supriya Dubey             ...for the State.

                   Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay             ...for the UOI.

                   Ms. Maanika Roy               ...for the NHAI.




                   The State files a report in Court which is taken on

             record.

                   The prayer of the writ petition in prayer (a) to the writ

             petition is as follows:

                  "A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
             respondent No.2 to supply a signed copy of the Arbitral

Award so made in connection with the Arbitration Case No. XII/Arbi/2017 on 06.07.2017 in the name of the petitioner in respect of the said land, if any forthwith;"

The writ petitioner submits that being aggrieved by

the amount of compensation granted to him for

acquisition of his land for the purpose of extension of

National Highway, he approached the Arbitrator for

redressal of his grievance and enhancement of the

compensation awarded to him.

By an order dated 6th July, 2017 passed by the

Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. XII/Arbi/2017, the

learned Arbitrator enhanced the amount of compensation

payable to the petitioner and other awardees.

The petitioner has alleged that a signed copy of such

order was not communicated to him in terms of Section

31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Also,

the amount of enhanced compensation was

communicated to him not by the Arbitrator but by the

Additional District Magistrate (L.A.) and competent

authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, who

was a party to the arbitration proceeding.

The petitioner placed reliance on a judgment passed

by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 2413 of

2020 on 11th January, 2021 in a similar matter.

Learned counsel for the NHAI submits that the fact

situation in that judgment differs from the present case

and the judgment is not applicable herein.

Enhanced compensation was received by the

petitioner without any objection and such delayed

application of the petitioner ought not to be entertained

by the writ Court.

Learned counsel for the State refers to the report

filed by him and submits that the enhanced

compensation was received by the petitioner without any

objection in 2018 and it is after a delay of about three

years that the present writ petition has been filed.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of

the parties.

It appears that the arbitration proceeding culminated

by an order dated 6th July, 2017, wherein it was observed

by the learned Arbitrator that "The Awardees may collect

the order from District Record Room, maintaining all

formalities."

The petitioner claims not to have received any copy of

the award but gladly accepted the enhanced amount

awarded in the said order dated 19th January, 2018.

During these three years, the petitioner did not find

it necessary to either take steps for receiving the copy of

the award or otherwise and is, therefore, not entitled to

the relief prayed for in prayer (a) of the petition.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to collect the

order from the District Record Room maintaining all

formalities as recorded in the arbitration award itself.

With the above observations, WPA 13640 of 2021 is

disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

As affidavits have not been invited, the allegations

made in this writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all

requisite formalities.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)