Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
WPA/2645/2017 on 30 November, 2022
1
30.11.2022
rc/ct.no.10
Item No.22-43
WPA 2645 of 2017
with
WPA 2649 OF 2017
with
WPA 2653 OF 2017
with
WPA 2656 OF 2017
with
WPA 2658 OF 2017
with
WPA 2659 OF 2017
with
WPA 2660 OF 2017
with
WPA 2662 OF 2017
with
WPA 2663 OF 2017
with
WPA 2664 OF 2017
with
WPA 2665 OF 2017
with
WPA 2668 OF 2017
with
WPA 2671 OF 2017
with
WPA 2672 OF 2017
with
WPA 2674 OF 2017
with
WPA 2675 OF 2017
with
WPA 2676 OF 2017
with
WPA 2679 OF 2017
with
WPA 2684 OF 2017
with
WPA 2688 OF 2017
with
WPA 2690 OF 2017
with
WPA 31247 OF 2017
Mr. Arindam Das
Mr. Atanu Banerjee
Mrs. Rumeli Sarkar ...for the petitioners
Mr. Dipankar Das ...for the NHAI
2
Mr. Chandi Charan De
Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Anirban Sarkar
Mr. Tulsidas Roy
Mr. Ram Chandra Guchait ...for the State
Since the question of law and facts involved in all
these writ petitions are similar, by consent of the parties,
the writ petitions are taken up for consideration
analogously and disposed of by a common order.
Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties.
The petitioners claim to be owners of the plots in
question and submit that the plots were acquired by the
National Highways Authority of India (in short, "NHAI").
Despite objections raised by the petitioners, notices under
Section 3H(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") were issued to
the petitioners though no opportunity of hearing was
granted to them. The petitioners submit that since
compensation was paid to them after coming into effect of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013") on
01.01.2015, the petitioners are entitled to compensation
under the said Act. The petitioners seek to submit an
application under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 before
the learned Arbitrator and pray for a direction upon the
learned Arbitrator to consider the said application in terms
3
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as the
Act of 2013 upon affording reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners.
Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the NHAI that since the petitioners
received the amount of compensation prior to 01.01.2015,
the Act of 2013 is not applicable in the present cases.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State-respondents that the entire amount
of compensation as well as the arbitral award was
disbursed in favour of the petitioners in 2014 and as such,
the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation
under the Act of 2013.
The report submitted on behalf of the State-
respondents indicate that an arbitral proceedings under
Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 was held by the learned
Arbitrator in respect of 157 petitions filed before him but
there is no whisper in the four corners of the report to the
effect that the petitioners or any of them were served
notice under the said provision of law or were granted
opportunity of hearing by the learned Arbitrator before the
award was passed.
In view of the same, this Court is inclined to hold
that the arbitral proceedings which prima facie took place
behind the back of the petitioners cannot be applicable in
case of the petitioners and the petitioners are not bound
by the decision taken by the learned Arbitrator therein.
An Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in a
judgment passed on 07.09.2022 in MAT No. 1520 of 2019
with IA No:CAN 2 OF 2021 has dealt with an identical
issue and has made similar observation therein.
In view of the above, I am inclined to hold that since
the arbitral award was passed behind the back of the
petitioners herein, the petitioners are granted liberty to file
an application under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956
before the learned Arbitrator within one month from date.
The learned Arbitrator shall deal with the application in
accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and consider whether the
petitioners are entitled to payment of compensation under
the Act of 2013, upon affording reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law.
The entire exercise should be completed within a
period of six months from the date of communication of
this order.
Copy of the award be served upon the petitioners
within one month thereafter.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the
merits of the case and the learned Arbitrator shall be at
liberty to decide the matter independently upon hearing
the petitioners and all other interested persons and
considering relevant documents without being influenced
by any observation made by this Court in the body of this
order.
Let a photocopy of this order be tagged with each of
the files.
With the above observations and directions these
writ petitions are disposed of.
There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations
contained in the petition are deemed not to be admitted.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied
for, be furnished to the parties upon compliance of
necessary formalities.
(Suvra Ghosh,J)
