Calcutta High CourtWPA/1196/2020dismissed

Khudiram Debnath & ORS v. State Of West Bengal & ORS

2021-07-15Hon'Ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur2 pages

15.07.2021 rc/ct.no.10 Item No.25 WPA No. 1196 of 2020 Sri Khudiram Debnath & Ors.

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE) Mr. Partha Pratim Roy ...for the petitioner Mr. Soumitra Bandhopadhyay Mr. Ramchandra Guchhait ...for the State Mrs. Monika Roy ...for the NHAI The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the enhanced compensation in respect of the subject premises which has been acquired by the respondents.

The petitioner submits that the nature of the land of the petitioner is Viti and hence the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced rate of compensation than what has been awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in MAT No. 1257 of 2018 to contend that the petitioner is entitled to a higher rate of compensation.

Mrs. Monika Roy, Advocate appearing on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India (in short, "NHAI") raises an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that in view of the fact that an award has been passed in respect of the subject premises the only remedy which the petitioner can avail of to file an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award. She also disputes the fact that the subject land is viti land. Mr. Soumitra Bandhopadhyay, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the petitioner has received the entire compensation and is now estopped from challenging the same. He further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. He also submits that the petitioner has an adequate alternative statutory remedy. I have heard the parties. It is an admitted fact that the final award under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been passed and the petitioner had participated in such proceedings.

It appears that the grievance of the petitioner is now being raised for the first time and had not been raised before the Arbitrator.

The decision cited by the petitioner is distinguishable and inapposite to the facts of this case. In view of the alternative efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioner I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

WPA No. 1196 of 2020 stands dismissed.

There will be, however, no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail the alternative efficacious remedy, if so advised. (Ravi Krishan Kapur,J)