Dismissed¶¶19

Badan Singh and Others v. Union of India Thru Secy. and Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2022WRIC/8298/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Yamuna Express Way land acquisition; National Highway Act 1956 s.3(D) notification dated 18.5.2006; National Highways Act 1956 s.3G(5) reference; Competent Authority award 24.12.2008; Arbitrator award 10.07.2009 unchallenged; alternative remedy Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; writ maintainability; delay of over two and a half years; compensation, bonus, ex-gratia solatium; status quo over possession; dismissal for non-prosecution (nobody appeared for petitioners); Union of India; Allahabad High Court; WRIT-C 8298/2012; decided 15.02.2022.

What did the court decide?

Against the award of the Arbitrator, the petitioners had an appropriate remedy in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which they should have availed of. ¶¶17

Badan Singh and Others Vs Union of India Thru Secy. and Others — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2022)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners were entitled to mandamus directing the respondents to summon records regarding the rate of compensation, bonus and ex-gratia solatium for land acquired for the Yamuna Express Way (notification dated 18.5.2006 under section 3(D) of the National Highway Act, 1956) and to maintain status quo over possession, notwithstanding the Arbitrator's award of July 10, 2009 and a filing delayed by more than two and a half years. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

The writ petition, filed more than two and a half years after the Arbitrator's award, was prima facie without merit; and as no one appeared for the petitioners, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Against the award of the Arbitrator, the petitioners had an appropriate remedy in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which they should have availed of.

¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajesh Bindal, Chief Justice and Piyush Agrawal, Judge; order dated 15.02.2022) dismissed for non-prosecution a writ petition (WRIT-C No. 8298 of 2012) filed in 2012 by Badan Singh and others against the Union of India and others. The petition sought mandamus to summon records on the rates of compensation, bonus and ex-gratia solatium declared for land acquired for the Yamuna Express Way (notification dated 18.5.2006 under section 3(D) of the National Highway Act, 1956) and to maintain status quo over possession. The Competent Authority had announced its acquisition award on December 24, 2008; on reference under section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Arbitrator announced his award on July 10, 2009, which the petitioners did not challenge. The writ petition, filed more than two and a half years after that award, was held prima facie devoid of merit: the appropriate remedy lay under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and should have been availed. Respondents' counsel submitted the petitioners had already received the compensation assessed by the Arbitrator. As no one appeared for the petitioners, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial No.387

¶2

**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****

¶3

WRIT - C No. - 8298 of 2012

¶4

Badan Singh and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

v/s

¶7

Union of India and others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Through :- Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Tej Bhanu Pandey, Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.4, 7, 8 and 9

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The present writ petition was filed way back in the year 2012 praying for the following relief:

¶13

"A. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents summon the record from the respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 with regard to the rate of compensation, bonus, ex-gratia-solatiam declared/given for the land acquired for the purpose of Yamuna Express Way at different time since year 2005 and further be pleased to direct the parties to maintain statues-quo over the land acquired by the notification dated 18.5.2006 under section 3(D) of National Highway Act, 1956 with regard to the possession."

¶14

As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the admitted facts on record are that for the acquisition of the land of the petitioners, award was announced by the Competent Authority on December 24, 2008. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Arbitrator in terms of Section

¶15

2 WRIC No. 8298 of 2012

¶16

3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Arbitrator announced the award on July 10, 2009. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners availed of their appropriate remedy to challenge the award of the Arbitrator. The present writ petition was filed more than two and half years thereafter praying that the appropriate compensation be paid on account of acquisition of land owned by the petitioners.

¶17

Prima facie, we are of the view that against the award of the Arbitrator, the petitioners had appropriate remedy in terms of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The same should have been availed of.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners had already received the amount of compensation as assessed by the Arbitrator.

¶19

In any case, the writ petition was filed more than two and half years after the award was announced by the Arbitrator. Prima facie, there is no merit in the writ petition. However, as no one has appeared for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution.

¶20

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

¶21

Allahabad 15.02.2022 Kuldeep/Rakesh

¶22

Whether the order is speaking : Yes Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

Badan Singh and Others v. Union of India Thru Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badan Singh and Others v. Union of India Thru Secy. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Photo Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shaikh Hajrat Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sidharth Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Reena Rani Jain Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Hari Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neelam Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others