Buddha vs Competent Authority
2022 Latest Caselaw 41 MP

                                  1                             WP-23574-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 WP No. 23574 of 2021
                   (BUDDHA Vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS)

Indore, Dated : 03-01-2022
      Shri Ajay Kumar Mimrot, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

      Shri Shrey Raj Saxena, learned Dy.A.G. for the respondent/State.

Ms. Anita Sharma, learned counsel along with Shri Tayjas Sharma, learned counsel for NHAI.

T he petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Arbitrator, Indian National Highway, Tribunal and

Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain (M.P.) under National Highway Authorities Act, 1956 whereby the matter has been remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue)/ Land Acquisition Officer for re- assessment of the compensation.

T h e land belonging to the petitioner has been acquired by the competent authority for the construction of the National Highway Link Road Connectivity (Dewas By-pass). Respondent no.1 Sub-Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Dewas initiated the proceedings under section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. After considering the claim objections

submitted by the petitioner an award dated 15.11.2020 was passed. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by respondent no.1 the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Ujjain Division who is an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. After hearing the parties, learned Arbitrator has partly allowed the application and remanded the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer for re-assessment of compensation hence, this petition before this court.

T he petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that Additional Commissioner being an Arbitrator is competent enough to enhance the compensation if he finds that Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded adequate compensation. He has no jurisdiction to remand the matter to Sub- Divisional Officer, (Revenue)for fresh adjudication.

2 WP-23574-2021 T h is sole issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in various cases and it has been held that the Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is required to assess the compensation after examining the material available on record, he has no power to remand the matter to the

SDO for re-assessment. One of the orders passed by the principal seat in W.P. No.20028/2021 (Krishna Kumar Dubey V/s State of M.P. and others) decided on 05.10.2021 is reproduced below:-

" 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 h a s 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 of sub-section (6) of Section 3G of the Act, which has applied the 3 WP-23574-2021 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

a n d W.P.Nos.9920/2017, 9921/2017, 9922/2017, 9924/2017, 9926/2017, 9928/2017 and 9929/2017 vide order dated 26.7.2017.

I n 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."

Learned counsel appearing for the NHAI is not disputing that the issue involved in this case has already been answered by this High Court (supra). In view of the above, the issue raised in this petition is no more res integra hence the writ petition is allowed, and the matter is remitted back to the Arbitrator/commissioner Ujjain Division to decide the application afresh without being influenced by the earlier order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(VIVEK RUSIA) (RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE JUDGE

AJIT Digitally signed by AJIT KAMALASANAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

KAMALASANA 2.5.4.20=156c9cedca1b74d671db9f220a5e3ed6cba241effa d892107d95ef0a1afc55b4, pseudonym=CFDFD9C36711CA738F527A5D61A1EE901C09 EF29,

N serialNumber=7F0BEE2D78BD57DA058F3247441C87E7E08 17FB61F5E2ABCAEE63CAAA7B3B9FF, cn=AJIT KAMALASANAN Date: 2022.01.05 11:36:36 +05'30' 4 WP-23574-2021 ajit