Dismissed

Shreenath Sugar Mills v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2021CW/3273/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the determination of compensation for land acquisition. Noting the availability of an alternative statutory remedy via arbitration under the National Highway Act, 1956, the court declined to entertain the petition despite存在的 factual disputes.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable due to existence of alternative statutory remedy under section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956. Liberty given to approach competent authority via arbitra

Shreenath Sugar Mills Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3273/2020

¶3

Shreenath Sugar Mills, Through Its Partner Dinesh Chandra S/o Sh. Shanti Lal, By Caste Jain, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Mohi, Tehsil And District Rajsamand.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road, Transport And Highway, Government Of India, Transport Bhawan-1 Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001.

¶7

The Competent Authority Land Acquisition (Additional District Magistrate), Collectorate Rajsamand, District Rajsamand (Raj.).

¶8

The National Highway Authority Of India, Through Chairman, G-5-6 Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi.

¶9

Project Director Nhai, Project Implementation Unit, 465, Near Saras Dairy, Goverdhan Villas, Udaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Nonepresent
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. NS Rajpurohit

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

14/12/2021

¶15

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Nobody appeared

¶16

on last various occasions.

¶17

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged determination of compensation made by the competent authority vide order dated 14.05.2019.

¶18

Mr. NS Rajpurohit submits that the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy in the form of arbitration under

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CW-3273/2020]

¶21

section 3 G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, and therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.

¶22

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is having an efficacious statutory remedy and considering the factual disputes, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed.

¶23

The petitioner will be free to avail remedy of arbitration under section 3 G(5) of the Act of 1956.

¶24

In case, the appropriate application is filed within a period of 30 days from today, the competent authority shall consider the delay in filing the application, in accordance with law, having due regard to the fact that the petitioner has bonafidely been pursuing the writ petition from 20.02.2020 till date.

¶25

Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶27

1-pooja/-

Shreenath Sugar Mills v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreenath Sugar Mills v. Union of India

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

Leeluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalpit Jakhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Nikhil Kumar Vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India

Sardarmal Vs Pukhraj

Shri Shaitan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sachin Memorial Paramedical College Vs State of Rajasthan