Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krishna Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WP-20028-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-20028-2021
(KRISHNA KUMAR DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 05-10-2021
Shri Deepak Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni, learned Government Advocate for the respondents
No.1, 3, 4 and 5/State.
Shri Priyanshu Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
National Highway Authority of India.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the
Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur dated 1.3.2017 (Annexure P/4).
The Commissioner was approached by the petitioner under Section 3G(5) of
the National Highways Act, 1956 for arbitration of dispute as according to his
perception the amount of compensation awarded to him was wholly
inadequate. The Commissioner by the aforesaid order has recorded the
argument of the petitioner that the competent authority i.e. SDO has not
determined the compensation regarding Khasra No.67 area measuring 0.02
hectare of village Bilha and three Pacca shops and therefore, remitted the
matter to the SDO with a direction to make fresh assessment for payment of
compensation to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9395/2019 titled as
Anoop Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & others dated 6.11.2020. In that case
also the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in purported exercise of the
power under Section 3G(5) of the Act, while setting aside the award passed
by the competent authority has remanded the matter to him for fresh
determination of compensation. This Court relying on the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.18374/2014 (Santosh Soni Vs.
National Highway Authority) and connected writ petitions decided on
23.1.2015 and earlier decision in Writ Petition No.5883/2011 (Radheshyam
Vs. National Highway Authority) decided on 11.10.2011 held that reading
2 WP-20028-2021
of sub-section (6) of Section 3G of the Act, which has applied the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shows that it is subject to the
other provisions including Section 3G(5). Sub-section (5) of Section 3G
provides that the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government, which in
the present case is the Revenue Commissioner, has to determine the amount.
This has to be done by the Commissioner himself and that he has no power
to remand the matter back for re-determination of the compensation.
On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, several other identical writ
petitions have been allowed i.e. Writ Petition Nos.18374/2014, 18379/2014,
18380/2014, 18383/2014, 18396/2014, 18397/2014, W.P. No.18398/2014,
W.P. No.18405/2014 and 18406/2014 vide order dated 23.1.2015, W.P.No.
No.2521/2017 vide order dated 22.2.2017 and W.P.Nos.9920/2017,
9921/2017, 9922/2017, 9924/2017, 9926/2017, 9928/2017 and 9929/2017 vide
order dated 26.7.2017.
In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the
Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur to decide the same in accordance
with law within a period of four months.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State
for being endorsed to all the Revenue Commissioners, as this Court has
come across similar orders being passed by almost all the Revenue
Commissioners repeatedly, to apprise them of the correct position of law.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
C
Digitally signed by
CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2021.10.07 16:48:59
+05'30'
