Pravakar Dey And Others vs Union Of India And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3924 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              ARBA No.15 of 2014
                             (Through hybrid mode)

            Pravakar Dey and others                ....           Appellants

                                                   Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

                                       -versus-

            Union of India and another             ....         Respondents
                            Mr. D. Tripathy, Central Government Counsel


                     CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             11.08.2022
   4.       1.      Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of

appellants and submits, the appeal is covered by order dated

11th March, 2022 passed by this Bench in ARBA no.2 of 2019

(Gadadhar Pal v. Union of India and others).

2. Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate, Central Government

Counsel appears on behalf of respondents and submits, facts in

the case are different and therefore not covered by said order.

He refers to impugned judgment dated 16th November, 2013,

paragraphs 7 and 8 therein to point out that there was CBI

inquiry against, inter alia, the Additional District Magistrate

and submission was that there be declaration of exaggerated

compensation fixed in 184 numbers of plots during 2nd

// 2 //

September, 2004 to 16th December, 2004. He submits,

accordingly recovery proceedings were initiated against the

awardees. On query from Court, he is unable to point out any

provision in either Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or

National Highways Act, 1956 or Land Acquisition Act, 1894

contained therein regarding recovery on award as made on an

exaggerated amount. On further query from Court Mr. Tripathy

is unable to demonstrate that steps were taken by Union of

India under section 34 in the 1996 Act to have those awards set

aside.

3. Perused impugned judgment dated 16th November,

2013. It appears, appellants had produced evidence of similar

pala kissam of land sold at Rs.14,00,000/- per acre on

registered sale deed no.1657 dated 22nd May, 2001 but the

Court below, inspite of referring to the document said, there is

no evidence.

4. Impugned judgment is on the face of it erroneous. It is

set aside in appeal. The claim for enhancement is restored to

the arbitrator. It be dealt with expeditiously.

5. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks