The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a land acquisition award. It held that the dispute regarding title must be adjudicated by the Arbitrator or the Civil Court, as writ jurisdiction cannot decide title disputes.
The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to avail the available remedies for the prayers made.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37876 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mohd. Danish And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Maurya,Anshu Kumar,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Chandan Agarwal,Gaurav Dhama,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Ms. Shivangi Nanda holding brief of Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya learned counsel for the petitioners made a prayer for adjournment.
Heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra learned Advocate for the respondentNHAI.
The present writ petition has been filed by four petitioners seeking to challenge the award dated 19.12.2019 passed by the competent authority/Additional District Magistrate (Nazul), Prayagraj. For the first prayer made in the writ petition for declaration of the award under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, the remedy before the petitioners lies in approaching the Arbitrator by invoking the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956.
It appears that there is some dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question and the order dated 18.4.2022 has been passed by the competent authority namely Highways Authority referring the matter to the Civil Court in view of Section 3H(4) of the Act, 1956.
The statement in the writ petition is that the petitioners herein are owner in occupation of the land in question which was acquired vide notification dated 14.9.2017 under Section 3A of the Act, 1956 for six lane road. The declaration notification dated 18.7.2018 was issued and the plot in question is Gata No. 183 area 0.0744 hectares.
It is further stated that the petitioners were never informed about any proceeding by the competent authority about disposal of their objection under Section 3C. On account of the declaration, the entire land including the land belonging to the petitioners is vested in the Central Government. The public notice under Section 3D of
the Act, 1956 was issued on 8.10.2018. For the purposes of determination of compensation, on the issuance of notice, the petitioners submitted their detailed objections on 29.10.2018. The award dated 19.12.2019 has been passed without discussing any objection or claim of the petitioners and other plot holders.
It is sought to be submitted in the writ petition that the competent authority has treated the Prayagraj Development Authority as owner of the land and has not dealt with the objection of the petitioners wherein the petitioners have clearly stated that the Prayagraj Development Authority had executed the sale deed. In the award, the entire Gata No. 183 is shown to be owned by the Prayagraj Development Authority and decision has been taken to pay compensation to the Prayagraj Development Authority. The award was not within the knowledge of the petitioners. When the petitioners came to know about the award, they filed an objection dated 2.12.2020. No further proceeding has been undertaken. There is a further order dated 18.4.2022 referring the matter to the Principal Court of civil jurisdiction in view of the dispute relating to the title to the property.
From the above noted averments made in the writ petition, it is more than evident that the petitioners are claiming right, title and interest in the acquired land namely Gata No. 183 area 423.45, over which, there is a dispute with regard to the right of the petitioners.
The remedy, thus, before the petitioners is to approach the Arbitrator for computation or agitate their grievances before the Civil Court where the matter has been referred by the order dated 18.4.2022 passed by the competent authority.
In any case, the dispute relating to title in the land in question cannot be decided within the scope of the writ jurisdiction.
The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy available to them for the prayers made in the present writ petition.
Order Date :- 6.2.2023 Brijesh
Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the remedy lies in approaching the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) for disputes regarding the award under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Whether the Highways Authority's order referring the matter to the Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 appropriately addresses the title dispute.
Whether the dispute regarding title in the acquired land can be decided within the scope of writ jurisdiction.
6 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Danish And 3 Others
State Of U P And 6 Others
Sunita Agarwal
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
