Madhya Pradesh High Court
Plm Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs National Highway Authority Of India ... on 8 June, 2015
W. P. No.8095/2015
08.06.2015
Ms. Rashmi Pathak, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for the
respondent on advance notice.
Exception is caused to the order dated 20 th January, 2015 passed by Commissioner (Arbitrator) Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur; whereby, in exercise of the powers under Section 3 G (5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, the Arbitrator has remitted the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer.
It is urged that it is beyond the powers of Arbitrator to have remitted the matter to the to the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determining of compensation. It is contended that by virtue of sub-section (5) of Section 3 G of the Act of 1956, it is obligatory on the part of the Arbitrator to himself determine amount of compensation on an application preferred by the aggrieved party.
Reference is drawn on the decision by Division Bench of this Court in batch of petitions viz., W.P. No.18374/2014, W. P. No. 18379/2014, W.P. No. 18380/2014, W.P. No. 18383/2014, W.P. No.18396/2014, W.P. No.18397/2014, W.P. No.18398/2014, W.P. No.18405/2014 and W.P. No.18406/2014 decided on 23.1.2015 which in turn has relied on W. P. No.5883/2011 decided on 11.10.2011, wherein it has been held-
"A reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that sub section (6) which applied the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is subject to the other provisions, including Section 3(G)(5) of the 1956 Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 3G provides expressly that the Arbitrator, appointed by the Central Government which in the present case is the Revenue Commissioner, Gwalior Division has to determine the amount.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Commissioner instead of determining the amount as contemplated by Section 3G(5) of the National High Way Act, 1956 has remanded the matter to the competent authority."
The impugned order when tested on the proponement of law laid down by Division Bench in W. P. No.18374/2014 and other connected Writ Petitions and W. P. No.5883/2011, cannot be allowed to stand.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Arbitrator to determine the compensation in accordance with law.
The petition is finally disposed of in above terms. Cc as per rules.
(SANJAY YADAV) (SUBHASH KAKADE)
V. JUDGE V. JUDGE
Loretta