Mukesh Kumar Choudhary vs National Highways Authority Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2435 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  W.P.(C) No. 5063 of 2022
            Mukesh Kumar Choudhary                                        ..... Petitioner
                                            Versus
            1. National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi, through its Chairman
            2. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Kandra, Dhanbad
            3. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and
            Land Reforms, Ranchi
            4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
            5. The District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority under National
            Highways Act, 1956, Dhanbad
            6. The Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator under National Highways Act, 1956,
            Dhanbad                                                       ..... Respondents
                                              -----

CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Kr. Sinha For Respondent Nos.1-2: Ms. Khushboo Kataruka For Respondent Nos.3-6: Mr. Shray Mishra, A.C to A.G

-----

04/24.07.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the

respondents to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner in terms with the

award dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the

respondent No.6 in Arbitration Case No. 30/2020 whereby the said respondent,

after considering the entire records of the case as well as taking into account

the enquiry report of the respondent No.5 and after due consideration of the

enquiry report of the Circle Officer, Dhanabd, has directed the respondent Nos.

2 and 5 to pay compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of his land and

structure situated at Khata No. 5, Plot No. 157, Mouza-Khudandih, Thana No.

242, measuring an area of 43 Decimals approx. for the purpose of

expansion/broadening of NH-32 at market rate treating the same as residential

land. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the

respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to pay the compensation amount along with appropriate

interest from the date of acquisition of the said land till the date of its payment

after deducting the amount of Rs.3,43,647.20, which was illegally calculated @

Rs.3,82,000/- per Acre for the total acquired land i.e. Rs.3,820/- per Decimal by

the respondent No.5 and was paid to the petitioner against compensation of the

said land, however, the same was accepted by him under protest.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and

2 stating that the respondent No.6 has exceeded his jurisdiction by remanding

the matter to the respondent No.5 instead of determining the compensation on

his own as contemplated under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act,

1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1956']. In support of the said

statement, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have also referred a judgment rendered

by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Adwait Fauzdar Vs.

National Highways Authority of India reported in 2016 SCC OnLine MP

598.

On putting a question to learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2

as to whether the said respondents have challenged the award dated

20.10.2020 passed by the respondent No.6 in Arbitration Case No. 30/2020, it

has been replied that the same has not been challenged.

Under the said circumstance, the statement made in the counter affidavit

that the respondent No.6 has exceeded his jurisdiction by remanding the matter

to the respondent No.5 instead of determining the compensation of his own as

contemplated under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 is of no relevance. If at all

the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were aggrieved with the said award, they should

have challenged the same as provided under the law.

It is unfortunate that an awardee has been compelled to file a writ

petition before the High Court seeking implementation of the award passed by

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

Hence, let a counter affidavit be filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4

and 5 explaining as to why the award dated 20.10.2020 passed by the

respondent No.6 in Arbitration Case No. 30/2020 has not yet been implemented.

The said counter affidavit must be filed within two weeks.

Put up this case on 10.08.2023 under the same heading.

Satish/-                                                           (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)