Writ petition regarding non-payment of enhanced land compensation awarded by an Arbitrator under the National Highway Act, 1956. The Court disposed of the petition with an observation directing the authority to decide the claim in accordance with law within two months after hearing the parties.
Direction to decide claim within two months after hearing.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149814-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19817 of 2024
Petitioner :- Munidraj Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
arbitration cases, including the aforesaid Arbitration Case No. 31 of 2016, under Section 3-G(7) of the Act, 1956, before the District Magistrate of Gautam Buddha Nagar. After considering the facts and evidence, the Arbitrator enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,500/- per square meter through an award dated 16.05.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite this clear-cut award, which has not been challenged or overturned by any court, the petitioner has not received any compensation for the acquired land. Based on a supplementary affidavit, it is claimed that the petitioner's father, Kishan Lal, was the recorded tenure-holder of the aforesaid disputed Plot No. 858-Ga, as evidenced by CH Form 45 (Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit). After the death of the petitioner's father, the land was inherited by the petitioner and his brothers, each owning one-third, amounting to 0.2523 hectares each, and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the instructions provided by the authority, which were relied upon by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, are per se incorrect, as the petitioner's father was the recorded tenure-holder, as reflected in the primary inquiry made by the NHAI. He submits that the petitioner submitted an application on 28.11.2023 before the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) for the disbursement of compensation as per the Arbitrator's order, but no payment has been made till date. A report from the Tehsil Authority dated 28.02.2024 confirms that the petitioner is the legal owner of 0.2523 hectares of the disputed land. Despite repeated representations to the respondents, no action has been taken, and the petitioner has become landless and is facing severe hardship due to the non-payment of compensation. He submits that a direction be issued to Respondent No.3 / Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Gautam Buddh Nagar, to pay the compensation with interest as per the Arbitrator’s award dated 16.05.2018 within a stipulated period.
Order Date :- 13.9.2024 NLY
Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate is directed to decide the petitioner's claim for compensation and interest within two months after providing a hearing?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Munidraj
State Of Up And 3 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
