Disposed

Sushila Roy v. Union of India Anr. Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Dec 2022WPA/3397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court directed authorities to treat the petitioner's representation as an application for award enhancement under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and mandated furnishing of the arbitral award and calculation details within stipulated periods.

What did the court decide?

Directed to treat representation as application under S.3G(5) NH Act; to provide award copy within six months; to provide calculation copy within one month.

Sushila Roy Vs Union of India Anr. Ors. — Land Acquisition | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

06 20.12.2022 Ct.No.10 b.das

¶2

In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

¶3

WPA No. 3397 of 2022

¶4

Sushila Roy Vs.

¶5

Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Arindam Das Ms. Rumeli Sarkar …for the petitioner. Mr. Ansar Mandal Mr. Sougata Mitra …for the State. Ms. Manika Roy …for the NHAI.

¶7

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶9

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the plot in Mouza-Chengpara-53, Block-Alipurduar, P.S. and DistrictAlipurduar which was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India. The petitioner was served with notice under Section 3H (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 which indicates that the award was determined after 1^st January, 2015.

¶10

The petitioner has made two-fold prayers in the writ petition:- firstly, direction upon the concerned authority to provide the petitioner with a copy of determination of award under Section 3G (1) of the Act of 1956; secondly, liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator under Section

¶11

¶12

3G(5) of the Act for enhancement of the compensation declared in favour of the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner has also claimed compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 since, according to the petitioner, compensation was paid only after 1^st January, 2015.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order under Section 113 (Power to Remove Difficulties) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to extend benefits of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement mentioned in First, Second and Third Schedules to the Acts mentioned in the Fourth Schedule of the Act dated 28^th August, 2015 (annexure P-5 to the writ petition) in support of his contention.

¶15

It is submitted on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India that the award amount was deposited by the authority much prior to 1^st January, 2015 and therefore, the case of the petitioner was not covered under the Act of 2013.

¶16

It is submitted on behalf of the State respondents that the authority may be directed to decide the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the State respondents further candidly submits that copy of the determination of the award under Section 3G(1) of the Act of 1956 should be supplied to the petitioner.

¶19

In controverting the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted on behalf of the State respondents that the circular dated 28^th August, 2015 is not applicable to a proceeding under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 since the said order was not made by the Parliament and has no binding effect.

¶20

The petitioner submitted a comprehensive representation before the concerned authority on 10^th November, 2022, which has not been heeded to till date. The petitioner prays for a direction upon the concerned authority to treat the said representation as an application under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 and consider the same within a stipulated time frame.

¶21

Upon consideration of the submission made on behalf of the parties and material on record, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Divisional Commissioner, Jalpaiguri and Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956, being the 6^th respondent herein, to treat the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 10^th November, 2022 as an application under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 and consider and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the

¶22

¶23

date of communication of this order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties including the petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶24

Copy of the arbitral award shall be provided to the petitioner within a week thereof.

¶25

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to deal with the matter independently and without being influenced by any observation which may have been made in this order.

¶26

The 8^th respondent is directed to provide a copy of the calculation of the award under Section 3G(1) of the Act to the petitioner in terms of the submission made on behalf of the State respondents within one month from the date of communication of this order.

¶27

With the above directions, the writ petition being W.P.A. 3397 of 2022 is thus disposed of.

¶28

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to be admitted.

¶30

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶31

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Sushila Roy v. Union of India Anr. Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Roy v. Union of India Anr. Ors.

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

Mahadeb Santra Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dilip Das Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Saphijulamahah & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Poonam Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

Surobala Barman Vs Union of India and Ors.

Upen Roy Vs Union of India and Ors.