A writ petition challenging the land acquisition award and compensation calculation was dismissed. The court held that since a statutory remedy via arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956 existed, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Writ petition and stay application dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14587/2021
Surendra Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh Rajpurohit, Aged About 46 Years, Through Power Attorney Holder Shri Padam Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh Aged About 77 Years, Resident Of Village Sankarana, Tehsil Aahor, District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
18/11/2021
(2 of 6)
[CW-14587/2021]
0.2123 hectare was got converted for residential purposes vide order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (in short ‘SDO’), Jalore, whereafter the description of said land in the relevant revenue record reflects it to be ‘Ger Mumkin Avasiya’.
(3 of 6)
[CW-14587/2021]
competent authority cancels/revokes such order and restores its position as an agricultural land.
“ 3G. Determination of amount payable as
compensation .—(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.
(4 of 6)
[CW-14587/2021]
Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under subsection (1), for that land.
(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.
(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.
(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.
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or subsection (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration—
(a)the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of
(5 of 6)
[CW-14587/2021]
the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;
(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;
(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.”
(6 of 6)
[CW-14587/2021]
dealership agreement, for which Hon’ble the Supreme Court on the basis of facts involved therein observed that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy, as the rule of alternative remedy is that of discretion.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
58-A.Arora/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this court can entertain the writ petition despite the availability of statutory remedy under section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction when the disputed compensation can be adjudicated by the statutory Arbitrator.
Whether the argument regarding land valuation due to conversion status bars the operation of the statutory arbitration remedy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors.Distinguished¶29
(2003) 2 SCC 107 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Singh
The State Of Rajasthan
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
