Dhan Kumari v. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

Chhattisgarh HC18 Mar 2024WPC/272/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

No monetary relief; the petitioner was directed to raise the compensation dispute before the Additional Commissioner (arbitrator under S. 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956) within two weeks, who is to decide it objectively by a speaking order at the earliest; writ petition disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. ¶¶22

Dhan Kumari Vs Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner received inadequate compensation for property acquired for construction of National Highway No. 200 (New No. 130), and whether the compensation dispute should be determined through arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶¶15

Court's answer

The Court held that the petitioner's compensation claim can be decided only after due verification and scrutiny of revenue records and physical verification of the actual acquisition, and therefore the matter needs to be dealt with before the Additional Commissioner under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 rather than being adjudicated by this Court.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Subject to the petitioner approaching the Additional Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner shall decide the compensation dispute objectively by passing a speaking order; the petitioner was directed to raise the dispute before the Additional Commissioner in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within two weeks, and the Additional Commissioner is expected to take a decision at the earliest.

¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, single bench), WPC No. 272 of 2019, Order dated 19.03.2024: Petitioners Dhan Kumari and Kekati sought remedy for allegedly inadequate compensation paid on acquisition of their property at Village Kiritmal, Kharsiya, Raigarh, for construction of National Highway No. 200 (New No. 130) under the National Highways Act, 1956. Noting that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division had been appointed as arbitrator under S. 3G(5) and that the claim required scrutiny of revenue records and physical verification of the actual acquisition, the Court directed the petitioner to raise the dispute before the Additional Commissioner within two weeks, with the arbitrator bound to decide objectively by a speaking order; the writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 272 of 2019

¶4

Dhan Kumari D/o Late Shri Digamber Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kiritmal, Tahsil And Block Kharsiya, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Kekati Wd/o Late Digamber Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kiritmal, Tahsil And Block Kharsiya, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsil Kharsiya, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Chief Engineer National Highway Authority Raipur, Through Kharsiya, Division, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner	: Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate.
For Res. No. 1/State	: Mr. S. Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer
For Res. No. 2	: Mr Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central
	Govt. Counsel.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

19.03.2024

¶15

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition seems to be inadequate compensation that the petitioner has been awarded in the course of acquiring his property for the purpose of construction of National Highway No. 200 (New No. 130).

¶16

¶17

1. Perusal of the record would show that the properties were acquired in the present case applying the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short “the Act of 1956”). Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 reads as under:-

¶18

“ 3G(5). If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.”

¶19

1. It has been informed by the Central Govt. Counsel that the Additional Commissioner of Bilaspur Division has been appointed as the authority to act as an Arbitrator for determining proper compensation. Considering the nature of the claim raised by the petitioner and also the fact that the claim of the petitioner is one which can be decided only after due verification and scrutiny of the revenue records and also on physical verification of the actual acquisition done, this Court is of the opinion that the matter needs to be dealt with before the Additional Commissioner under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956.

¶20

1. Subject to the petitioner approaching the Additional Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner shall decide the same objectively by passing a speaking order. The petitioner is directed to raise his dispute before the Additional Commissioner in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of two weeks from today and the Additional Commissioner is expected to take a decision at the earliest.

¶21

1. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the writ petition stands

¶22

disposed of .

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶25

amita

Dhan Kumari v. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhan Kumari v. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bonny Singh Saggu Vs Union of India

Ms Scania Steel and Power Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

Jageshwar Pahadi Korwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vedprakash Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Phool Komre Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Subhash Rai (Proprietor of the Partner M/S Devanshi Construction) Vs the Principal Secretary (Pwd)