Ashok Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6481 of 2020 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Thakur S/o- Shri Upendra Thakur resident of Village- Pirokhar, P.S.- Madhwapur, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar represented through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Madhubani. 3.

The Land Acquisition Officer, Madhubani.

4.

The Dy. Secretary, N.H.A.I, N.H. 527-C, Darbhanga. 5.

The National Highway Authority of India, represented through its Project Director, N.H.A.I, N.H. 527-C, Darbhanga.

6.

The Arbitrator-cum- Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Lal Bahadur Singh, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18 Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, Advocate Mr. Shri Nath Pathak, S.C.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 10-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief(s) :- "I. To issue a writ in the nature of 24.12.2019 (Annexure - P/7) passed by the Respondent No. 6 in connection with Arbitration Case No. 02 of 2019, by which the Respondent No. 6, in complete departure to the nature of land and the rate fixed by the State Govt., rejected the claim

2/4 of the petitioner by observing "ररषषय राजमारसं0527C के ननमारणहेतु आवेदककीममजरनपरोखरमे अवनससतखेसरानं०- 3289, रकवा- 3583 डीसमलभूनम नकसमकृनषके रपमेअधधगहहत नकयारया, जबनक आवेदककाकसनहैनक पशनगत भूनमआवासीयपककहत की है।आवेदकदारा पशनगत भूनमकेआवासीयहोनेके समसरनमेकोईसाकयपसतत नहींनकयारयाहै, बनलक आवेदकदारानदनांक04.12.2012 कोननबंनधतकेवालाके माधयमसेपशनगत भूनमकेdz;

करनेसंबंधीदसतावेज पसतत नकयारयाहै, उकतदसतावेजकेअवलोकनसेजात होताहैनकपशनगत अनजरतभूनमकासतकायमीपैदावार योगयहैजोREO सडककेठीकसटेमेअवनससतहै। नकसीभूनमकेसडककेसटेहोनेek= सेआवासीयनहीं मानाजासकताहै, बनलकउकतभूनमकेआवासीयपररकत कीपनरनधकेअनतरतहोनेपरहीउसेआवासीयपककहत का मानाजासकताहै।पसतत मामलेमेआवेदकदारायहभी सपषटनहींनकयारयानकपशनगत भूखणडकीनकतनीदूरी परराँवबसाहुआहै।सपषटतःपशनगत भूनमकेकृनष योगयहोनेकेकारणहीसकमपरधधकरर दाराकृनषयोगय भूनमकेआधारपरअनुमानयमुआवजाकाननधाररणनकया रया.

ऐसीनससनतमेआवेदककापशनगत अनजरतभूनमके आवासीयहोनेकादावाअनुनचतपतषत "

होताहै।.

II. To issue a writ in the nature of 24.12.2019 (Annexure- P/7) passed by the Respondent No. 6 in connection with Arbitration Case No. 02 of 2019, as the Respondent No. 6 completely failed to appreciate that the market value of residential house has been determined to a tune of Rs. 49,500/- per decimal, hence a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued for commanding the Respondents No. 2 to 5 to ensure payment of

3/4 compensation at the circle rate of residential house @ Rs. 49,500/- per decimal.

III. To issue a writ in the nature of 24.12.2019 (Annexure - P/7) passed by the Respondent. No. 6 in connection with Arbitration Case No. 02 of 2019, because the Respondent No. 6 in order to save arbitrariness and illegal act of the Respondents No. 2 to 5 in calculating the value of the land of the petitioner at the present circle rate, so the Respondents No. 2 to 5 be directed to recalculate the compensation amount at the prevailing circle rate in the locality, at the relevant time.

IV. That while passing the order impugned the Respondent No. 6 completely ignored and discarded circle rate and in that continuance the Respondent No. 6 without considering the circle rate, rejected the claim of the petitioner, hence it is respectfully submitted that the Respondents No. 2 to 5 be directed to ensure payment of compensation in favour of the petitioner at the rate of circle rate as determined and fixed by the Department of Registration.

V. Any other relief or reliefs."

At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in view of the provisions as contained in section 3G (5) and (6) of the National Highways Act, 1956, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the

4/4 provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are applicable to every arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956. It is thus submitted that once an award has been passed by the arbitrator, as in the instant case, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the said award, he should challenge the same under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in view of section 3G (6) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court finds substance in the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents.

In view of the above objection raised by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to move under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award of the arbitrator, impugned herein.

The instant application is permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U