Smt. Sashi Prabha Shukla vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2844 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.2731 of 2023

Smt. Sashi Prabha Shukla                               ....Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. J.S.Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State.
            Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to an

award dated 08.08.2023 ("the award"), passed by the

respondent no.3, under Section 3G of the National Highways

Act, 1956 ("the Act").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his property

has been acquired under the provisions of the Act and

compensation determined under Section 3G of the Act. But,

the structure that has been raised by the petitioner on the

property has not been counted for determining compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is aggrieved by the award because it does

not determine the compensation of the land and the structure

standing thereon. He would submit that there is a structure

raised by the petitioner on his own land, which has been

acquired under the Act, but the compensation for the

structure has not been determined. Therefore, interference of

the Court is required.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/the

National Highways Authority of India ("the NHAI") would

submit that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of

determination, he could very well approach for arbitration

under Section 3G(5) of the Act to the arbitrator.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on it, would

submit that the petitioner is afraid that if he approaches the

arbitrator, in the meanwhile, the respondent no.2/The NHAI

may take the possession to frustrate the cause of the

petitioner.

7. The Act provides for a procedure for acquiring

land for the purposes of the Act. Complete procedure has

been given under the Act. Section 3G provides for

determination of amount payable as compensation. It is the

case of the petitioner that though the compensation has been

determined qua the land, but, there has been no

compensation determined for the structure, that has been

raised by the petitioner on his land.

8. Even if it is so, in substance, the petitioner is

dissatisfied with the amount of compensation that has been

awarded under Section 3G of the Act. The petitioner can very

well refer his matter to the arbitrator for determination of the

compensation that may be payable to him. Once such

reference is made to the arbitrator, in view of Section 3G(6) of

the Act, the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 ("the Arbitration and Conciliation Act") shall apply.

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act makes

provisions with regard to interim measure or protection in

respect of various things, including the property. Not only

this, Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act makes

provisions with regard to interim measures during arbitral

proceedings.

9. The petitioner can very well avail the alternate

efficacious remedy while referring his matter to the arbitrator

under Section 3G(5) of the Act. Therefore, this Court does not

see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the

petitioner deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission

itself.

10. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.09.2023 Ravi Bisht