Patna High Court
Shanti Kunwar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 15 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15684 of 2018
======================================================
Shanti Kunwar W/o Mahadeo Vishwakarma, Resident of Quarter No. 51,
Jhauakothi Jagdishpur, P.S. and District Bhagalpur, At Present Resident of C/o
Pramod Sharma, Sone Ghat Road, Madanpur, P.S. Barun, District
Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector-Cum-Arbitrator, National Highway Division-2, Aurangabad.
3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reform, Aurangabad.
5. The Registration Registrar, Aurangabad.
6. The Circle Officer, Madanpur, District Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Bimal, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP14
For the NHAI : Mr. S.N.Pathak, S.C.(NHAI)
Mr. Saurav Nikunj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-02-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for the NHAI.
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the
following reliefs:
"(i) For issuance of writ in the appropriate
nature for quashing of the order dated 31.3.2017
passed by the Additional Collector-cum-
Arbitrator, National Highway Division-2,
Aurangabad in L.A. Case No. 183/2016-17
whereby and where under the learned Court
below has rejected the application filed by the
petitioner for payment of compensation against
the land acquisition @ commercial value but the
learned court below has rejected the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.15684 of 2018 dt.15-02-2023
without considering that in the adjacent land the
commercial activity are going on likewise petrol
pump, hardware shop and educational institution
are there.
(ii) For further direction to the Respondents
authority to reconsider the case of the petitioner
in the light of the decision taken by the
Arbitrator who in a similar situated case for the
same project has granted compensation @
commercial value though in a case of the
petitioner has rejected the same only on the
basis of the report of the concerned officer.
(iii) And for any other relief/reliefs for which the
petitioner is found to be entitled in the eye of
law."
The case of the petitioner in brief is that the land of the
petitioner appertaining to Khata No.192, Plot no.22 measuring
an area of 1.2532 hectares situated in the village Madanpur, P.S.
Madanpur, District Aurangabad adjacent to the National
Highway was subject matter of the land acquisition case being
L. A. Case No.182 of 2016-17. Being aggrieved by the
assessment of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer the
petitioner filed L.A. Case no.183 of 2016-17 for enhancement of
compensation, however, the same was rejected by the
respondent authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that
other similarly situated persons have got higher compensation.
Not having got any relief from the authorities, this writ
application was filed for the prayer mentioned hereinabove.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15684 of 2018 dt.15-02-2023
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent No.2 stating therein that the notices under section 3-
G of the National Highways Act, 1956 ('the Act' in short) was
issued to the petitioner informing her to appear before the
competent authority. The petitioner appeared and raised
objection and thereafter the award of her acquired land was
prepared under the Act. Being aggrieved by the said award, the
petitioner preferred a case before the Arbitrator-cum-Additional
Collector, vide L.A. Case no.183 of 2016-17 and the said
Arbitrator did not find any merit in the case of the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI relying
on the provisions of section 3-G and section 3-H of the Act
together with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Project Director, National Highway Authority,
Araria at Purnea, Bihar and Anr. vs Md. Gufran Alam &
Ors. reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 207 submits that it has
categorically been held therein that on determination of the
amount of compensation by the arbitrator, the remedy available
to the effected party would be an application under section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the
said arbitral award. As such it is submitted that the instant
Patna High Court CWJC No.15684 of 2018 dt.15-02-2023
application would not be maintainable.
It would be relevant to quote paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of
the aforesaid judgment in the case of Project Director,
National Highway Authority (supra) which is as follows:
"8. We may look to the certain provisions of
the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1996 which are
relevant for resolution of dispute before us.
Section 3-G of the Act of 1956 provides for
determination of amount of compensation by the
Competent Authority. Sub-section (5) thereof
empowers either of the parties aggrieved by the
award of the Competent Authority to seek
arbitration against such award. Sub-section (6)
of Section 3-G of the said Act provides that the
proceeding before the Arbitrator shall be
regulated by the provisions contained in the Act
of 1956. Section 3-H of the Act of 1956 provides
for deposit and payment of amount. Sub-section
(1) thereof provides for deposit of the
amount of compensation with the Competent
Authority. Sub-section (2) thereof provides for
payment of the amount to the claimants. Sub-
section (6) thereof provides for deposit of the
amount of difference in compensation awarded
by the Arbitrator. It is this sub-section (6) which
is pressed into service by the writ petitioner.
9. As recorded hereinabove, the proceedings
before the Arbitrator are governed by the Act of
1996. Section 34 of the Act of 1996 provides for
a remedy against the arbitral award by an
application for setting aside the arbitral award
before the Court. The "Court" is defined under
Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the
Act of 1996 to mean, "the principal civil Court
of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes
the High Court in exercise of its ordinary
original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to
decide the questions forming the subject-matter
Patna High Court CWJC No.15684 of 2018 dt.15-02-2023
of the arbitration if the same had been the
subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any
civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal
civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes."
Hence, it is evident that the remedy against the
arbitral award lies before the civil Court.
Section 36 of the Act of 1996 provides for
enforcement of the arbitral award under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same
manner as if it were a decree of the Court. Thus,
the statutory remedy for enforcement of the
arbitral award made under Section 3-G (5) of
the Act of 1956 lies before the civil Court."
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the submissions made, this Court finds
substance in the submissions made by learned counsel appearing
for the NHAI.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
including the reference of the National Highways Act, 1956
together with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the
ratio of the judgment in the case of Project Director, National
Highway Authority (supra), the Court is of the opinion that the
instant application is not maintainable and is accordingly
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy
available to him under law.
In case any application is preferred, while considering the
application for limitation, the authority concerned shall take into
Patna High Court CWJC No.15684 of 2018 dt.15-02-2023
consideration the period for which the matter in issue was being
pursued before this Court.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 20.2.2023
Transmission Date
