Dismissed

Ramdhari @ Ram Dhari Bhartiya and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023WRIC/15667/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide compensation objections under the National Highways Act, 1956. The court held that Section 3G(5) provides an efficacious remedy via arbitration for disputes over compensation amounts.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy provided under the Act.

Ramdhari @ Ram Dhari Bhartiya and 4 Others Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144736-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15667 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramdhari @ Ram Dhari Bhartiya And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suryakeshwar Singh,Vijay Bahadur Maurya

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Chandan Agarwal,Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi

¶6

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the objection of the petitioners dated 21.04.2023 and release the compensation amount in respect of Arazi No. 15, village Chakmeer Fazal Ali, Pargana Arail, Tehsil Karchhana, District Prayagraj.

¶8

It is evident from the documents placed on record that the respondents had issued a notification under Section 3-A of National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter, notification under Section 3-C was issued followed by award dated 22.11.2022. The objection of the petitioners is for award of a higher compensation amount. It has been filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Prayagraj.

¶9

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides that if the amount determined by the Competent Authority under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

¶10

Therefore, the petitioners have efficacious remedy to challenge the award and claim higher compensation in the manner provided under the Act.

¶11

No good ground is made out to direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Prayagraj to decide the objections. The petition is misconceived.

¶12

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy provided under the Act.

¶13

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Ved Prakash

¶14

(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramdhari @ Ram Dhari Bhartiya and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdhari @ Ram Dhari Bhartiya and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Tadak Nath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satya Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Dwivedi Vs Chief Election Officer and Another

M/S Om Rice Mill Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarthak Chaudhary Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Vaibhav Srivasatava and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others