Ramanugrah Narayan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18041 of 2016 ====================================================== Ramanugrah Narayan Singh Son of Paryag Narayan Singh, Resident of Village- Nouruo, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Director, Land Acquisition, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

4.

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Jehanabad. 5.

The Additional Collector-cum- Arbitrator, Jehanabad. 6.

The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India Project Implementation Unit, Gaya, House ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sajid Salim Khan-S C 25 For NHAI :

Dr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Govinda, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-08-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief/s:

(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 12.09.2016 passed by Respondent No. 5 in Arbitration Case No. 180/2015-16 contained in Annexure-II whereby the claim of petitioner under section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.18041 of 2016(2) dt.05-08-2025 2/3 rejected and for issuance of appropriate order or direction for directing the respondents to pay compensation for the land described in paragraph 3 of this application according to the present commercial market rate over which 4/6 lane NH-83 is being constructed by Respondent No. 6 and for issuance of a writ/order/direction for which the petitioner may be found legally entitled to under the facts and circumstances of this application.

3. At the outset, learned State Counsel submits that once the Arbitrator has passed the order, remedy lies before a competent Civil Court under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 5 according to which also, the petitioner has alternate remedy.

5. In that background, the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and if such petition is filed in next eight weeks, the Court concerned shall consider the limitation petition taking into

Patna High Court CWJC No.18041 of 2016(2) dt.05-08-2025 3/3 account that the writ petition was pending before this Court for nine long years.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U