Kalyan Singh Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 908 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Writ Petition (C) No. 663 of 2022

   1. Kalyan Singh Patel S/o Late Salikram Patel, Aged About 55 Years,
      R/o Village And Post- Purai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

   2. Pradeep Kumar Patel S/o Kalayan Singh Patel, Aged About 32 Years
      R/o Village And Post- Purai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                               ---- Petitioners

                                    Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
      Management       Department,    Mahanadi    Bhawan,      Naya       Raipur
      Chhattisgarh.

   2. Sub    Divisional   Officer   Cum   Land   Acquisition   Officer,    Durg
      Chhattisgarh.

   3. Project Director NHAI, Project Implementation Unit Dhamtari, Block
      No. F / 5, Shivraj Greens, Sihava Road, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District
      Dhamtari.
                                                           ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate, along with Mr. Rakesh Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate For Respondent no.3 : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 22.02.2022

1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for the following

reliefs:

i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order, issue a direction or necessary command, writ and set aside the impugned award dated 25.02.2019 and its computation part related to

the petitioners.

ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to restrict the respondents from interference in petitioner land until appropriate compensation handed over tot eh petitioner with interest.

iii) That this Hon'ble Court may please to direct the respondent authority to consider and decide the petitioner case afresh while fixing multiplier two or legally valid multiplier and grant compensation accordingly with all benefits (@ square meter for 500 SM and excess land) including interest and solatium for acquired alnd and property till the actual disbursement of compensation.

2. An identical writ petition i.e. WPC No. 657/2022 came up for hearing

before this Court a couple of weeks back. In identical set of facts this

Court vide its order dated 04.02.2022 in the aforementioned writ

petition i.e. WPC No. 657/22 had expressed its reluctance to entertain

the writ petition relegating the petitioners to avail the remedy that is

otherwise provided under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways

Act, 1956. For ready reference the order passed in the said writ

petition is reproduced hereinunder:

"2. The grievance of the petitioners substantively seems to be the improper multiplier applied by the respondent No.2 while quantifying the compensation part. According to the petitioners, the multiplier applied by the respondents and the notification for applying the said has already been struck down by the High Court and therefore the notification cannot be applied in other cases when once it has been declared bad. This in other word means that the petitioners are aggrieved by the compensation quantified and the multiplier applied by the State which according to the petitioners is incorrect in the light of the order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench, review against which has also been

dismissed and the matter is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

3. Be that as it may, if we look into the provisions of the Act, 1956, Section 3G provides for the determination of amount payable as compensation. Sub-section(5) of Section 3G also provides the mechanism in case if any person is aggrieved by the amount determined by the competent authority and the recourse available is to approach the Arbitrator. The respondents in the instant case have already notified the Arbitrator to settle the dispute so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned.

4. For ready reference, Section 3 G (5) of the Act of 1956 is reproduced hereinunder:

"3G(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government."

5. In the recent past also this court in a couple of writ petitions i.e. WPC No.5309 of 2021 and WPC No. 5207 of 2021 and other similar matters have decided the issue directing the parties to avail the remedy provided under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956.

6. Based upon those decisions that this court has taken, the present writ petition also stands disposed of on identical terms. Since the Central Government has already notified the authority to discharge the functions of the Arbitrator, the proper recourse available to the petitioners would to avail the said remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956.

7. Subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator appointed by the Government within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed further with the matter and decide the same objectively after due consideration of the claim of the petitioners and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. In the event if the petitioners raise their claim within a period of 30 days time as provided, the Arbitrator is expected to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit

of six months from the date of receipt of claim of the petitioners."

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for petitioners stressed to take a

different view in the light of a couple of decisions rendered by the

Division Bench of this High Court whereby the earlier notification of

the State Govt. dated 04.12.2014 has been struck down by the

Division Bench in WPC No. 1649/2017. He further submitted that the

award in the instant case being subsequent to the order passed by

the Division Bench, the multiplier provided in the notification dated

04.12.2014 could not have been treated as the basis for computation

of compensation. Learned senior advocate further highlighted certain

judgments of the Division Bench of this Court particularly the order

passed in the Review petition and the subsequent order passed by

the Division Bench in yet another case of Mahadev Gond Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and the review thereafter to the said judgment

highlighting the fact that the multiplier of one as per the notification

dated 04.12.2014 is no longer in existence and therefore applying the

said multiplier for the purpose of computation of compensation and

the award so passed is bad.

4. Given the fact that this Court has in identical set of facts and in

identical backdrop taken a view that, all said and done, the grievance

of petitioners is the wrong computation of compensation and the

amount quantified therein in the course of passing of the impugned

award. The National Highways Act undoubtedly is a special Act and

provides for a specific mechanism for redressal of the grievance of

the persons whose land is being acquired in the event of they being

dissatisfied with the amount determined by the competent authority.

The parties in such cases are bound to avail the said remedy first,

before knocking the door of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Thus, the present writ petition also stands disposed of in similar terms

reserving the right of petitioners to avail appropriate remedy of

Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

6. The directions given by this Court to the petitioners for approaching

the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Govt. in WPC No. 657/22

which stands reflected in paragraph-7 of the said judgment would also

be applicable in the facts of the present case. It is observed that

subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator appointed by the

Central Govt. in this regard within a period of 30 days from the date of

receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and

decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of

petitioners and the grounds raised by them seeking for quashment of

the award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the

multiplier factor taken into consideration for computation of

compensation.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai