WPMS/1728/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 2908 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No.1728 of 2020
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Through Hybrid Mode)

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naresh Pant, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.

Mr. M.C. learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

A very short issue, which now engages consideration in the present writ petition is that on culmination of an acquisition proceedings under National High way Act. What would be the recourse to be adopted by the land looser for award of the compensation and its payment? Under the Act the provisions provided, for the purposes of enforcement of an award is by virtue of making a reference under Section 3(h) Sub Section (4). But here there is a slight distinction, which is being sought to be drawn by the learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, that since there is no controversy pertaining to the entitlement of the property and the condition determined thereto Section 3(H) (4) will not be applicable.

Another limb of argument of learned Senior Counsel, is that the Officer, who has decided the matter i.e. the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, would not be having competence to decide, it because he becomes functus officio after rendering the award.

The learned Senior Counsel, is called upon to answer the query, that once there happens to be an earlier direction by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and that too which was rendered, and solicited by him, in his own writ petition, where the competent authority was directed to decide the controversy with regards to remittance of the amount, whether this argument would still be opened to be argued by him?

He has further has opened to answer the query of the Court, as to, whether what would be the implications, where the entire amount is being claimed, whether it will fall to be under the ambit of an apportionment, allegedly interpreted by the counsel for the petitioner while giving his interpretation to Sub Section (4) of Section 3 (H) of the Act.

Thirdly, he submits that the provisions of Section 3 (J) of the Act has been omitted in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. He is requested to place on record any gazetted notification, by virtue of which the said omission has been made, if any, striking down Section 3(J) or may substantiate his argument based upon the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment.

Put up this writ petition on 11.08.2021.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 06.08.2021 Arti