Patna High Court - Orders
Poonam Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 4 March, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
110IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3390 of 2025
======================================================
Poonam Kumari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP- 23
For the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Adv.
For the NHAI : Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Govinda, Adv.
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 04-03-2025Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Counsel for the state, Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Learned Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to pay the compensation at commercial rates, with interest, for the land of the petitioner that was acquired by the State for widening of N.H.- 82 and further to comply the order dated 16.08.2022, passed by the Arbitrator- cum-Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Arbitration Case No. 08 of 2022. Further, prayer has been made to direct the respondent authority to pay compensation to the petitioner as the respondent authorities have knowingly and Patna High Court CWJC No.3390 of 2025(2) dt.04-03-2025 2/6 willingly harassed the petitioner in payment of commercial rate of the land of the petitioner and for any other relief to the petitioner may be entitled to.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's land was acquired for the purpose of expanding of N.H.- 82. Counsel further submits that the compensation amount fixed by the competent authority was not acceptable to the petitioner, who therefore filed an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, [hereinafter referred to as N.H. Act, 1956] before the Arbitrator on the ground that the amount determined by the competent authority under sub- section 1 or sub-section 2 of 3G of the N.H. Act, 1956, is not acceptable to him. The petitioner subsequently filed Arbitration Case No. 8 of 2022, arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 2/2016-17, as per Annexure- 1. Counsel further submits that in the said order, the petitioner's land was considered to be in the commercial category, and it was directed that under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR ( Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013) [Act No. 30 of 2013] [hereinafter referred to as RFCTLARR, 2013], the compensation should be reconsidered, and the Land Acquisition Officer should take Patna High Court CWJC No.3390 of 2025(2) dt.04-03-2025 3/6 appropriate action in this regard. Counsel further submits that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the Arbitrator- cum- Commissioner, Magadh Parmandal, Gaya in Arbitration Case No. 08 of 2022, the NHAI filed an application under Section 3G(6) of the N.H. Act, 1956 and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal District Judge, Nawada in Civil Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Appeal Case No. 09 of 2023. Counsel further submits that the petitioner's appeal was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2024, and thus, the only option left for the petitioner to get the order implemented in the light of arbitral award or file a representation before the Collector- cum- District Magistrate, Nawada, for issuing a fresh award/modified award in the light of order passed by the Arbitrator and ensure the payment.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 representing the Bihar State Road Development Corporation, submits that the arbitral award has been directed to modify in accordance with Rule 26 of the RFCTLARR, 2013. Therefore, filing application by the petitioner before the Collector- cum- District Magistrate, Nawada is wrong in law. He should have filed an application before the District Land Acquisition Officer to modify the award, and once the amount is fixed, the Patna High Court CWJC No.3390 of 2025(2) dt.04-03-2025 4/6 petitioner must take further steps accordingly.
5. Learned Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India submits that the writ petition should be dismissed for two reasons. Firstly, the writ court is not the appropriate forum for the execution of an arbitral award. Counsel further submits that under the N.H. Act, 1956, the final authority is under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submits that once an award has passed and challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the only remedy for execution lies before the competent Civil Court and not before any other authority. On this ground, Counsel submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and should be dismissed. The second point he submits before this Court is that under Section 3G(7) of the N.H. Act, 1956, the competent authority or the Arbitrator, while determining the amount under sub-section 1 or sub-section 5 of Section 3G of the N.H. Act, 1956, must consider the law points available under Section 7(A), 7(B) 7(C) and 7(D) of the N.H. Act, 1956. According to him, the Arbitrator, at the time of deciding this case did not adequately determine the amount and passed a vague order that is basically unimplementable. Hence, for these two reasons, this writ petition should be dismissed. Counsel further relied on the Patna High Court CWJC No.3390 of 2025(2) dt.04-03-2025 5/6 orders and judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court in case of Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors. (order dated 22.04.2024 in CWJC No. 18281 of 2018), Shoubhagya Prada Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Judgment dated 10.09.2024 in CWJC No. 13453 of 2024), The Project Director, National Highway Authority, Araria at Purnea, Bihar & Anr. v. Md. Gufran Alam & Ors. Reported in (2014) 1 PLJR 207 and The project Director, National Highway Authority of India v. Sri Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. (Judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 651 of 2021) submits that in all these cases, it has been categorically decided by this Hon'ble Court that the petitioner has no remedy before the writ court and the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. At this juncture, the Court acknowledges a Rule framed, namely, National Highways (manner of depositing the amount by the Central Government; making requisites funds available to the competent authority for acquisition of land) Rules, 2019, whose Rule 3 is very much relevant in the present case. Since the legal issue involved in the present case is :-
"Whether a person in whose favour Arbitration- cum-
Commissioner has passed an order Patna High Court CWJC No.3390 of 2025(2) dt.04-03-2025 6/6 under Section 3G(5) of the N.H. Act, 1956, and thereafter the said order has been challenged under Section 3G(6) of the N.H. Act, 1956 / Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and it has been decided finally then what shall be the mode of execution of the award ?"
7. In order to decide this issue, the NHAI, the State and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are directed to file their separate counter affidavits with regard to the facts of this case and include their pleadings in the counter-affidavits, addressing the question framed by the Court in this order.
8. It is directed that the counter affidavits shall be filed within six weeks.
9. Put up this case on 28.04.2025, before appropriate Bench.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/-
U