Disposed

Rukhsiana Begum v. N.H.A.I. and Ors.

Orissa HC14 Oct 2019WP(C)/3687/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought higher land acquisition compensation for land classified differently than claimed. A bench observed the availability of an alternative remedy and disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to file a claim before the Collector-cum-Arbitrator within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to file a claim application before the Collector-cum-Arbitrator within two weeks; the Authority must issue notice and consider the claim expeditiously.

Rukhsiana Begum Vs N.H.A.I. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO.3687 OF 2018

¶2

14.10.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Das, learned counsel for National Highway Authorities.

¶3

The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that she is the owner of the land appertaining to Plot No.1312 under Khata No.512/514 measuring an area of Ac.0.10 and Plot No.1309 under Khata No.464 measuring an area of Ac.0.30 decimals of Mouza : Rampei, Tahasil : Athagarh in the district of Cuttack. The said land was acquired for expansion of National Highway No.42. So far as the kissam of the lands are concerned Plot No.1312 and Plot No.1309 were converted to ‘Gharabari’ in the year 2006 and 2013 vide O.L.R. Case No.35 of 2006 and O.L.R. Case No.16 of 2013 respectively. However, the Land Acquisition Officer – opposite party No.2 while calculating the compensation amount has taken into account only Plot No.1312 as ‘Gharabari’ kissam and Plot No.1309 as ‘Sarada-III’ kissam. She claims that the compensation amount in respect of Plot No.1309 may be calculated considering the same as ‘Gharabari’ kissam instead of ‘Sarada-II’. She further claims that the competent authority has not taken into consideration the provision of Section 3-G (7) of the National Highways Act, 1956 while calculating the compensation. Hence the Writ Petition.

¶4

¶5

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 taking a stand that since the petitioner has received the compensation and prays for higher compensation by recalculating the same as contemplated under Section 3-G(7)(d) of the National Highways Act, 1956, there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of filing arbitration before the

¶6

¶7

Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the said Act.

¶8

For better appreciation, Section 3-G (5) and Section 3-G (7) of the National Highways Act, 1956 are quoted hereunder:-

¶9

“3-G : Determination of amount payable as compensation. xx xx xx

¶10

(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.

¶11

(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-

¶12

section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration:

¶13

(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3-A;

¶14

(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;

¶15

(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;

¶16

(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.”

¶17

In view of the aforesaid provision, we dispose of this Writ

¶18

¶19

Petition with an observation that in case the petitioner files a claim application before the Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Cuttack as provided under Section 3-G (5) and (7)(d) of the National Highways Act, 1956 in respect of the property in question within a period of two weeks from today, in such event, the said authority shall issue notice to the National Highways authorities and consider the claim application of the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

Rukhsiana Begum v. N.H.A.I. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukhsiana Begum v. N.H.A.I. and 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

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Pani and Co.Pvt.Ltd. Vs O.S.F.C.

Management Committee Paradip Port Vs Central Government Industiral Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Biswamitra Rohidas Vs Vineet Bharadwaj

M/S.Modern Mechatech Vs Secy.,Dept.of Indust

Subhadra Mandal Vs State of Orissa

Shree Kuanreswar Mahadev Bije Vs the Commissioner of Endowments,Odisha