Himachal Pradesh High Court
Narinder Sharma And Others vs National Highway Authority Of India And ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: V .Ramasubramanian, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 388 of 2018
.
Decided on: 09.07.2019
Narinder Sharma and others ...Petitioners
Versus
National Highway Authority of India and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners: Mr. O.P. Sharma, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj,
Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1.
M/s. J.K. Verma, Adarsh K. Sharma,
Ashwani K. Sharma and Nand Lal
Thakur, Additional Advocates
General, for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No. 4.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:35:03 :::HCHP
2
V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice. (Oral)
.
CMP (M) No. 340 of 2019 & CMP No. 2570 of 2019 These applications are for condonation of delay and for restoration of the writ petition that was dismissed for nonprosecution.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on both sides. r
3. Though, the petitioner has been kind enough to leave it to the wisdom of the Court to find a sufficient cause in the application, we are of the considered view that these applications could be allowed for the simple reason that the fight is between two sets of individuals laying a claim for the amount of compensation determined under the National Highways Act, 1956. The dismissal of these applications will only lead to further litigation between the parties and that is perhaps the sufficient cause. Therefore, these applications are allowed.
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:35:03 :::HCHP 3 CWP No. 388 of 20184. The petitioners have come up with the above .
writ petition seeking a right to payment of the compensation determined by the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 in respect of the land acquired by them.
5. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for NHAI and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent, namely, the fourth respondent.
6. From the pleadings, it is clear that there is a serious dispute between the petitioners on the one hand and the fourth respondent on the other hand, about the person to whom the compensation is payable. The Competent Authority has determined the compensation at ₹ 6,41,408/.
It appears that the amount of compensation determined under the Act has also been deposited.
7. The Competent Authority has power under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of the ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:35:03 :::HCHP 4 original jurisdiction, whenever any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount. Therefore, this writ petition .
is disposed of directing the Competent Authority to refer the dispute between the parties in terms of Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act.
8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
r to (V. Ramasubramanian)
Chief Justice
(Anoop Chitkara)
Judge
July 09, 2019
( rajni )
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 00:35:03 :::HCHP