Dismissed

Ambika Tiwari v. District Judge, Chandauli and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2019WRIC/13953/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of a Section 34 arbitration matter to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority. The Court held that Rajasthan Right to Fair Compensation Act provisions were inapplicable per its Fourth Schedule and dismissed the petition, while directing expedite pending Section 34 proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order passed as to costs; underlying Section 34 application to be decided expeditiously.

Ambika Tiwari Vs District Judge, Chandauli and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13953 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ambika Tiwari Respondent :- District Judge, Chandauli And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Goyal

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

The petitioner claims to be the owner of Plot No. 480/0.3501 hectares, Village Kori, Pargana Dhoos, Tehsil Mughalsarai, District Chandauli. He has filed the present writ petition for the following relief:

¶6

" (i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to transmit the Misc. Case No. 26/2019 U/s 34 of Arbitration Act (Ambika Vs. Arbitrator and others) before Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Varanasi/ respondent no. 2 and direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the same within any stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case."

¶7

Similar and identical issued was raised in a companion writ petition being Writ-C No. 13949 of 2019 (Ram Dhiraj and another v. District Judge, Chandauli and 3 others) , wherein this Court by order dated 21.5.2019 has held that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are not applicable in petitioner's case. The material part of the said judgment is quoted below:

¶8

" We find that the prayer of the petitioners to transmit the matter to respondent no. 2 is misconceived for the following reason that Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. Section 105 of the Act, 2013 reads as under:

¶9

"105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications.–(1) Subject to sub-section (3),

¶10

the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.

¶11

(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

¶12

(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.

¶13

(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in disapproving the issue of the notification or both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification, the notification shall not be issued or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such modified form as may be agreed upon by both the Houses of Parliament."

¶14

In view of Section 105 of the Act, 2013 it is evident that the provisions of the Act, 2013 are not applicable in the petitioners' case and the matter is covered under the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶15

The petitioners have drawn our attention to an administrative order issued by the Joint Registrar (J) (Services) which has been addressed to all the District & Sessions Judges, wherein it is provided that the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authorities have been established at certain places in the State of U.P. amongst other Bareilly, Jhansi, Kanpur, Meerut, Moradabad, Varanasi districts and the matter relating to the their judgeship be transferred to the concerned established authority. We are of the view that the said administrative order is not applicable in the present case for the reasons given in foregoing paragraphs.

¶16

In view of the above, we find that relief of the petitioners that the matter be transferred to an authority under the Act, 2013 is misconceived. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition as no

¶17

mandamus can be issued against the provisions of law which is explicit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit, however, the application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 which is pending before the District Judge be decided expeditiously.

¶18

No order as to costs."

¶19

In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed, however, the application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pending before the District Judge be decided expeditiously.

¶20

No order as to costs.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.5.2019 Digamber

Ambika Tiwari v. District Judge, Chandauli and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambika Tiwari v. District Judge, Chandauli and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Praveen and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anurag Kumar Goel and Another Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Ram Tirath Prajapati Vs Government of India and 3 Others

Vijit Goswami Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others