Gujarat High Court
Patel Chunilal Virchandbhai vs Competent Authority And Special Land ... on 14 November, 2022
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/20529/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20529 of 2022
==========================================================
PATEL CHUNILAL VIRCHANDBHAI
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MEHSANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SAMATA V PATEL(3784) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEVANG VYAS, ASG for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS ARCHNA AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 14/11/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Samata V. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Ms. Archna Amin, learned advocate for respondent No.3 while Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG for respondent No.4.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent -
Arbitrator to complete the Arbitration Proceedings of the Village Moti Dau, Taluka and District Mehsana within a Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 15 21:01:52 IST 2022 C/SCA/20529/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022 stipulated period of time after hearing the respective parties to the Arbitration Proceedings in accordance with the Railways Act, 1989 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Ms. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on Common Oral Order passed in similar matter by the Coordinate Bench of this Court namely; Special Civil Application No.6612 of 2022 and allied matters dated 26.07.2022. She further requested this Court to pass a similar order in this matter too. The order dated 26.07.2022 reads as under:
"1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.A.J.Yagnik appearing for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Rishi Malek appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4 have submitted that if the appropriate directions are issued to the respondent no.2, who is seized with the arbitration proceedings to decide the same within appropriate time frame, their grievance, at this stage, raised in the writ petitions will get resolved.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Yagnik has submitted that the arbitrator was appointed in the year 2010 and by now, almost 12 years have passed, and he has not finalized or decided the arbitration applications even after the pleadings are over. He has placed reliance Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 15 21:01:52 IST 2022 C/SCA/20529/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022 on the provisions of Section 29A of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"), and has submitted that the time limit specified in the said section for deciding the arbitration is 12 months. It is submitted by him that the provisions of Section 29A of the Act are invoked in view of the provisions of Section 25(f) of the Railway Act, more particularly Section 20(f)(7) thereof.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Yagnik has submitted that the petitioners are farmers and their lands are situated within the limits of District Bharuch for the project of special railway project Western Dedicated Freight Corridor and the acquisition of lands and awards were passed in the year 2010. It is submitted that being dissatisfied with regard to the payment of compensation, the petitioners have preferred the arbitration proceedings and the same are not yet finalized after so many years. It is submitted that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent no.2 accordingly.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Rishi Malek appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4 has submitted that despite repeated requests made to the respondent no.2 to decide the arbitration proceedings, the same are not yet decided.
5. Learned AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi appearing for the respondent no.2 has submitted that looking to the volume of the applications preferred i.e. approximately 3000 pertaining to the land acquisition in 17 districts, a reasonable time may be given to decide the same.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
7. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioners, who are the farmers, being Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 15 21:01:52 IST 2022 C/SCA/20529/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022 dissatisfied with the amount of compensation paid to them pursuant to their acquisition of land situated in district Bharuch, have filed the applications under the provisions of Section 20(f), 6 and 7 of the Railways Act read with Section 29A of the Act. Such arbitration applications have been filed in the year 2010. By now, almost more than 12 years have passed and still they are awaiting result of such arbitration applications. It is not in dispute that the arbitration applications are to be decided under the provisions of Section 29A of the Act. The same reads as under:-
"29A.Time limit for arbitral award.-- [(1)The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23:
Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavor may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub- section (4) of section 23]"
A plain and literal meaning of the provisions of Section 29A of the Act reveals that the arbitration proceedings shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Act.
8. Learned AGP Mr.Trivedi appearing for the respondent no.2 is unable to dispute that such proceedings were required to be decided within a period of 12 months. However, due to administrative reasons, the arbitration applications are not decided.
Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 15 21:01:52 IST 2022C/SCA/20529/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022
9. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer only because the respondent no.2 is not deciding their applications even after passage of 12 years. It is highly deplorable that though requested by the petitioners as well as by the respondent no.2 and such arbitration proceedings are still pending for so many years. Such proceedings are not being decided on the lame excuse that there are 3000 applications pending before the various arbitrators appointed by the Government of India for deciding the applications pertaining to the land acquisition in 17 districts. It is not the case of the respondent no.2 that he is the lone arbitrator, who has to decide 3000 applications.
10. Learned advocate Mr.Yagnik, at this stage, has submitted that for every four districts there is one arbitrator appointed and the respondent no.2 has to deal with the applications pertaining to four districts only and not all the 3000 applications.
11. Under the circumstances and in wake of the aforesaid glaring facts, the present petitions are allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to decide the arbitration proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and shall finally pass orders on arbitration applications.
12. After the order was dictated, learned advocate Mr.Rishi Malek has forwarded a notification dated 14.07.2022, wherein the nomenclature of the respondent no.2 has been substituted from "Fisheries Commissioner to Commissioner/Director of Fisheries." The same is ordered to be taken on record. Direct service is permitted."
4. Ms. Amin, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that while passing the aforesaid order the Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 15 21:01:52 IST 2022 C/SCA/20529/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2022 Coordinate Bench has relied upon provision of Section 29(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which according to her would not be applicable in the facts of the present case.
5. In light of above, the present petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to decide the arbitration proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and shall finally pass orders on arbitration application.
6. Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) VATSAL S. KOTECHA Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 15 21:01:52 IST 2022