Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Kumar And 3 Others vs Union Of India And 5 Others on 4 November, 2022
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33084 of 2022 Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Sharma,Gaurav Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajnish Kumar Rai Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai learned Advocates have put in appearance on behalf of respondents and perused the record.
Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the premise that the challenge to the communication dated 17.5.2022 cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, it is merely a departmental communication on the proposal submitted by the Additional Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited, Aligarh on the application moved by the petitioners dated 14.5.2022 with regard to payment of rehabilitation compensation to the petitioners.
It is submitted that the compensation admissible to the tenure holders has been determined under the award passed by the competent authority under Section 20F of the Railways Act, 1989. In case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the determination made by the competent authority, it is open for them to challenge the award before the Arbitrator taking recourse of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 20-F of the Railways Act.
As regards the application, no compensation can be paid beyond the determination made by the competent authority.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners herein are ready and willing to approach the Arbitrator. However, the petitioners have an apprehension that their application may be rejected on the ground of delay, inasmuch as, the award is dated 20.6.2017.
Noticing the above and the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 20-F of the Railways Act which does not provide any limitation for approaching the Arbitrator as against the award passed by the competent authority and noticing the fact that the petitioners were agitating their claim before the railways authority, we provide that, in case, the petitioners file an application before the Arbitrator invoking the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 20-F of the Act challenging the determination made by the competent authority under the award dated 20.6.2017, the application moved by the petitioners shall be entertained without raising any objection as to the delay in filing thereof and the determination of claim made by the petitioners for rehabilitation compensation in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 shall be determined on merits, in accordance with law by the Arbitrator, in an expeditious manner.
The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Brijesh