Karnataka High Court
Abdul Hameed S/O Razaksab Sunnewale vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 10 December, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527
WP No. 226493 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.226493 OF 2020 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI ABDUL HAMEED
S/O RAZAKSAB SUNNEWALE,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT VIJAYAPUR,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. K. N. SUBBA REDDY &
SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
LUCYGRACE 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER &
Location:
HIGH COURT
HON'BLE ARBITRATOR
OF
KARNATAKA AT BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CUM COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR
LAND ACQUISITION,
NH-13 FROM KM 30.340 TO KM 102,
FOUR LINE BIJAPUR SOLAPUR SECTION,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECH),
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
PLOT-E2, JAI JAIARAM NAGAR,
BEHIND SHIVADHARE COLLEGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527
WP No. 226493 of 2020
JULE SOLAPUR-413 003,
MAHARASHTRA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH KUMR MARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 & R2 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, (A) CALL FOR
RECORDS IN CASE NO.RB/LAQ/ARBT/CR-19/16-17
SY.NO.139/3 TO A EXTENT OF LAND MEASURING 1932 SQ.MTS
SITUATED KANNAL VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT
CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN; (B) CALL
FOR RECORDS AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED 05.03.2020
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE
NO.RB/LAQ/ARBT/CR-19/16-17 IN RESPECT OF LAND IN
SY.NO.139/3 TO A EXTENT OF LAND MEASURING 1932 SQ.MTS
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FOR
REFERENCE FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED
01.09.2016 VIDE ANNXURE-E2 CONSIDERING THE
CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY AFTER REMAND
ORDER BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND GRANT THE
COMPENSATION AS PER THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION
AND REHABILITATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; (C) ISSUE ANY OTHER
WRIT OR ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527
WP No. 226493 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 at Annexure-A passed by the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner and Arbitrator, Vijayapur District, declining to enhance the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent - competent authority and for other reliefs.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:
2.1. The subject land of the petitioner having been acquired by the respondents, the 2nd respondent passed an award on 30.06.2016 fixing the market value of the land of the petitioner at Rs.2143/- per square meter.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the said Act of 1956'), seeking -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 re-determination/enhancement of compensation. After hearing the parties, the 1st respondent-Arbitrator fixed the market value of the petitioner's land by enhancing the same to Rs.6429/- per square meter and re-determine the compensation granted. Subsequently, additional land of the petitioner having been acquired, the 2nd respondent passed an award fixing the compensation at Rs.2143/- per square meter, aggrieved by which, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent - Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the said Act of 1956. The 1st respondent proceeded to terminate the proceedings by passing an order dated 19.10.2017 on the ground that re-determination of compensation was unnecessary. The said order dated 19.10.2017 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.208268/2017, which was disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 09.12.2019, setting aside the order of the Arbitrator and remitting the matter back to the 1st respondent-Arbitrator for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 2.2. Subsequent to the remand order passed by this Court, the 1st respondent once again rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 3G(5) of the said Act of 1956 by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.
2.3. The respondents have filed the statement of objections and they contested the petition.
3. Heard Sri Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the earlier order passed by this court in W.P. No.208268/2017 dated 09.12.2019 in order to point out that despite this Court specifically directing the 1st respondent-Arbitrator to conduct an enquiry into the matter and take into account the sales statistics available on record in relation to adjacent lands -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 and also the compensation payable in respect of lands similarly/identically situated, the 1st respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order without complying with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.208268/2017 and on improper and erroneous appreciation of the material on record and as such, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent deserves to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel would place reliance upon a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Siddharth vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others (W.P.No.106238/2023 (LA-RES), D.D. 21.02.2024) in order to point out that the market value of the lands in the very same survey number which were acquired under the previous notification would be a factor for the purpose of re-determining the compensation, which has not been done by the 1st respondent in the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside on this ground also. It is also pointed out that the 1st respondent has erroneously declined to take into account the market value of the same -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 survey number in respect of first round of acquisition and this is yet another circumstance, which vitiates the impugned order. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent deserves to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submit that apart from the fact that the impugned order is correct and proper, the only remedy available to the petitioner would be by approaching the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the impugned order and consequently, the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
6. By way of reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the event this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned award is contrary to law and facts as well as the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, there is no bar for this Court to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and as such, mere availability of an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would not come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. It is an undisputed fact and the matter of record that the 1st respondent - Arbitrator had earlier passed an order dated 19.10.2017, terminating the arbitration proceedings, which was assailed before this Court in W.P.No.208268/2017, which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The said order reads as under:
"Heard learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
2. Two questions arise for consideration in this petition viz.:-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020
1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against the order passed by the statutory arbitrator under section 3G (5) of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1956 read with section 32 (2)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1996?
2. Whether the impugned order passed by the arbitrator/respondent No.1 is in accordance with the provisions of NHAI Act?
3. Undisputed facts are that an extent of 1932 sq. meters of land comprised in Sy.No.139/3 of Kannal village belonging to the petitioner was acquired for widening of National Highway vide notification dated 24.02.2011. The competent authority determined the compensation in respect of the said land at Rs.2,143/- per sq. meter (Rs.199/- per sq. feet). The competent authority took into consideration the sales statistics relating to the sale of a piece of residential land covered under sale deed dated 08.08.2011.
4. Being dissatisfied with the said determination, a dispute was raised by the petitioner and the same was referred for determination by the statutory authority namely respondent No.1 in accordance with the provisions of National Highways Authority Act.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020
5. Respondent No.1 considering the material produced by the claimant enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,429/- per sq. meter (Rs.597/- per sq. feet). This order has not been challenged either by petitioner or by any other person. That being the case, an extent of 36x16 meters in the same Sy.No.139/3 came to be acquired by a subsequent notification dated 02.01.2003. The competent authority determined the compensation at Rs.2,143/- per sq. meter as determined on the earlier occasion. The petitioner once again raised a dispute and the same was referred to respondent No.1, Statutory Authority who by the impugned order terminated the proceedings as unnecessary under section 32 (2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act').
6. In the impugned order, respondent No.1 has held that even though the land involved in the case is non-agricultural open land converted for non agricultural commercial, yet, there is no commercial activities like petrol pump, dhaba etc. in and around the acquired land. Further, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranvir Singh & Another vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 3467, respondent No.1 was of the opinion that the market value of the fully developed land cannot be compared with
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 under developed land and accordingly he found it proper to terminate the proceedings.
7. The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that very same authority having determined the market value in respect of the very same survey number could not have terminated the proceedings on the reasoning that the land in question is not fully developed. Learned counsel has pointed out that in land acquisition proceedings, the comparable method is well established method in determining the compensation. The arbitrator having already determined the market value in respect of the very same survey number could not have declined to apply the very same principle in the instant case and thus, the impugned order has turned out to be arbitrary and contrary to the principle of law as well as provisions of National Highways Authority of India and thus sought to set aside the impugned order.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondents, however, has raised initial objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition contending that the impugned order is in effect an award passed by the first respondent and the same is amenable for challenge under section 34 of the Act and therefore jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 invoked in the instant facts of the case. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Sterling Industries vs. Jayprakash Associates Limited and Others decided on 10.07.1990. Further on merits of the case, learned counsel has argued in support of the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the petition.
9. In reply to the contentions urged by the respondents regarding maintainability of the petition, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order under section 32(2)(c) of the Act. Order under Section 32(2)(c) is not amenable for challenge under section 37 or under section 34 of the Act and therefore, Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India is the only remedy available to the petitioner, lest the petitioner would be rendered remediless.
10. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
11. Insofar as maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, the operative portion of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner reads as under:
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 " As narrated in the preamble the petitions filed under section 3G(5) of N.H.Act, 1956 by the petitioners for re-determination of compensation are hereby terminated as unnecessary for the reasons discussed in above para's in adherence to Sec.3G(6) of NHAI Act read with section 32 (2)(c) of Arbitration Act, 1996."
12. Even though first respondent has discussed the merits of the case, he has not passed any award answering the reference made to him either confirming the compensation determined by the competent authority nor has he enhanced the amount. On the other hand, he has proceeded to terminate the entire proceedings on the ground that re-determination of the compensation is unnecessary.
13. Section 37 of the Act provides for the appeal against appealable orders. As per the said provision, an appeal is maintainable against the order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8; granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9 or setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. Order under Section 32 (2)(c) does not fall within section 37 of the Act.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020
14. Under section 34 of the Act, an application for setting aside arbitral award could be filed only against arbitration award and that too on the grounds specified in sub section 2 of section 34 of the Act. In the instant case, respondent No.1 having not passed any award under the Act, neither the provisions of section 37 nor the provisions of section 34, in my view, are applicable to the case. In the case of sterling industries relied on by the counsel for respondent, the Arbitral Tribunal had passed a partial award under section 16 of the Act which was challenged in the petition and in that context, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in view of the specific remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, writ petition is not maintainable.
15. In the instant case, the arbitrator having terminated the arbitration proceedings, in my view, the aggrieved party is left with no other remedy other than taking recourse to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view the first question raised in this case is rejected.
16. Coming to the merits of the case, comparable method is also a well recognized method in determining the compensation. In the instant case, the material available on record indicate that in respect of the portion of the very same survey number, the competent authority had
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 determined the compensation based on the sale statistics available for the relevant period. However, as said sale deed related to the residential area, the Arbitrator in the earlier proceedings found it necessary to enhance the compensation to Rs.6,429/- per sq. meters. No material was produced before respondent No.1 to hold that the remaining portion of the very same survey number, which is now acquired was comparatively different from the land in respect of which the compensation was already determined. There is absolutely no basis for the first respondent to hold that no commercial activities like petrol pump, dhaba etc. were found in and around the acquired land. The material available on record indicates that no enquiry was conducted by respondent No.1 to arrive at the factual finding that no such activities were taking place in and around the acquired land. When the very same Authority having found that the acquired survey number had all the potentialities of a commercially converted land, there was no reason for respondent No.1 to refuse to consider this evidence. Since the first respondent has proceeded to terminate the proceedings without conducting any enquiry into the matter and having ignored the sales statistics available on record and having passed the impugned order contrary to the compensation
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 determined in respect of the identical lands, the impugned order, in my view, cannot be sustained.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the reference afresh in the light of the observations made in this order and the guidelines prescribed under the NHAI Act.
18. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the exercise within three months from the date of communication of this order."
9. As is clear from the aforesaid order, the objections raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the said writ petition was negatived by this Court and the said question formulated as point No.1 was answered in favour of the petitioner herein on the ground that the 1st respondent had terminated the proceedings and had not passed any award and as such, there was no bar for this Court to entertain the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In addition thereto, this Court specifically directed the 1st respondent- Arbitrator to conduct an enquiry and take into
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 account the sale statistics and the compensation determined in respect of the identical lands before proceeding to reconsider the matter. Further, this Court also directed the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the said order and guidelines prescribed under the National Highways Act. However, despite the specific directions issued by this Court in its order dated 09.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.208268/2017, a perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 05.03.2020 will indicate that the said directions have not been complied with by the 1st respondent, who has proceeded to reject the petition filed by petitioner by not assigning valid or cogent reasons as to why the sales statistics as well as the compensation determined in respect of identical lands should not be considered for the purpose of deciding re-determination of compensation. So also, the market value of the lands as determined in respect of the earlier round of acquisition in respect of the lands in the very same survey number has not been taken into account by the 1st respondent before
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 passing the order. In this context, it is relevant to state that in Siddarth's case supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:
"The petitioner asserts to be the owner of the land bearing SY.No.229 measuring 16 acres, 32 guntas and Sy.No.228/1A measuring 8 acres, 16 guntas both situated at Shiggaon Town, Taluk and District Havari. An extent of 8787 square meters of land was acquired in Sy.No.229 and an extent of 505 square meters was acquired in Sy.No.228/1A in the year 2003 by the National Highways Authority of India for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.4. Such being the case, the National Highway Authorities of India instead of utilizing the extent of land acquired, utilized the excess land to an extent of 2544 square meters in Sy.No.229 and 909 square meters in Sy.No.228/1A. The Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land acquired under the notification at Rs.646/- per square meter in Sy.No.229 and Rs.699.45/- per square meters in Sy.No.228/1A.
2. The petitioner moved the arbitrator under Section 3G of the National Highway Authorities Act. The arbitrator passed an award enhancing the market value from Rs.646/- per
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 square meter to Rs.1291.68/- per square meters in Sy.No.229 and 228/1A. The award passed by the arbitrator has attained finality.
3. The petitioner represented with the respondents to pay the market value of the excess land utilized for the purpose of wilding of National Highway No.4 in commensurate with the market value determined in respect of the land acquired under the notification. The representation having not been considered, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court in W.P. No.106764/2018 and W.P.No.110909/2019. This Court vide order dated 27.09.2021 disposed of the petition directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e., respondent No.1 herein to consider the representation. Respondent No.1 having not complied with the direction issued by this Court, the petitioner filed contempt petition in C.C.No.100145/2022. In the contempt proceedings, the respondents furnished the copy of the communication issued to the petitioner stating that the market value of the excess land is determined at the rate of Rs.646/- per square meters. However, the contempt proceedings were dropped, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the excess land was utilized by the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 respondents without following due process of the law and therefore, he is entitled for compensation incommensurate with the market value determined in respect of land, which were acquired under the notification. Therefore, the determination of the market value is arbitrary and discriminatory.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present petition is not maintainable since the petition is filed seeking for enhancement of compensation and the remedy available is to approach the arbitrator under Section 3G(5) the National Highways Act, 1956. He further submits that the market value determined in respect of the excess land, which has been utilized is just and proper and the same is not arbitrary and discriminatory, and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is undisputed that excess land in Sy.Nos.229 and 228/1A belonging to the petitioner was utilized for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.4 in addition to the lands belonging to the petitioner acquired under the notification. The arbitrator enhanced the market value of the land acquired under the notification at the rate of Rs.1291.68/- paisa per square meter. The
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 respondents have fixed the market value of the excess land at the rate of Rs.646/- per square meter in Sy.No.229 and at the rate of Rs.699.59/- in Sy.No.228/1A.
8. Admittedly, the respondents have not passed an award determining the market value of the excess land, as mandated under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956" for short). However, the respondents have issued a communication to the petitioner stating that the market value of the subject land are determined at the rate of Rs.646/- per square meters in R.S. No.229 and at the rate of Rs.699.45 in R.S. No.228/1A.
9. Sub Section (5) of Section 3G of the Act, 1956 deals with the determination of the amount payable with compensation and it states that where any land is acquired under this Act shall be determined by an order of competent authority. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is the competent authority to determine the compensation and the compensation has to be determined after hearing the land looser by taking into consideration, the market value of the subject land as on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020
10. In the instant case, the market value of the excess land which was utilized for widening of National Highway No.4 without following due process of law is determined without following the procedure prescribed under Section 3G of the Act, 1956, and in the absence of an award, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petition is not maintainable since a remedy is provided under sub Section (5) of Section 3G of the Act, 1956 is not acceptable.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade and others reported in 2022 SCC Online 1070 has held that when the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which are reported to be pending, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the reliefs to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, when the award passed the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court is to be executed by initiating proceedings before the concerned Executing Court.
12. In the instant case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not passed an award as contemplated under Section 3G(1) of the Act, 1956, and in the absence of an award, the petitioner cannot be relegated to approach the Deputy
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 Commissioner under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. Admittedly, the market value of the lands in the very same survey number which were acquired under the notification has been determined at the rate of 1291.68 by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. Therefore, the market value excess lands in the very same survey numbers which was utilized for the purpose of widening of the National Highway No.4 has to be determined in commensurate with the market value determined in respect of the land which were acquired under the notification. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to determine the market value of excess land measuring 2544 square meters in R.S. No.229 and 9009 square meters in R.S. No.228/1A at the rate of 1291.68 per square meters with all benefits in light of the decision held by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Tarsem Singh and others reported in (2019) 9 SCC
304.
iii) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020
iv) The amount which is already paid shall be adjusted towards the enhanced market value payable to the petitioner."
10. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment, this Court has directed the respondents therein to determine the market value of the land, bearing in mind the market value of the lands situated in the very same survey number.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent clearly fell in error in rejecting the claim petition filed by the petitioner by improper and erroneous appreciation of not only the material on record, but also the directions of this Court in W.P.No.208268/2017 supra warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.
12. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the present petition, having regard to the availability of
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020 alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the finding recorded by me herein before that the impugned order is contrary to directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.208268/2017 warranting interference by this Court in the present petition, mere availability of remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would not come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the 1st respondent once again for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
13. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 05.03.2020 at Annexure-A is hereby set aside.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9527 WP No. 226493 of 2020
iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.208268/2017 as well as the present order and also the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Siddharth vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others (W.P.No.106238/2023 (LA-RES), D.D. 21.02.2024) and also the compensation awarded in relation to lands previously acquired in the very same survey number as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43.1