UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dismissal of the writ petition filed by the Appellant, challenging the enhancement of compensation awarded by the 3rd Respondent, without entering into the merits, in view of the inordinate delay in approaching the Court is put to challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Pursuant to the notification dated 24.10.2016 issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1956'), the land belonging to the 1st Respondent situated in Khasra No. 1034 and 1035 ad-measuring 0.16 and 0.20 hectares respectfully (total 0.36 hectares) was acquired in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1956. The 2nd Respondent / Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 28.12.2017 determining the compensation, which was stated as much on the lower side and hence enhancement was sought for by the 1st Respondent by filing application under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 before the 3rd Respondent. It was contended that the fixation of compensation was not in accordance with the market value prescribed in the guidelines issued by the Central Valuation Board 2016-17, and that since the land belonging to the 1st Respondent was situated in the village 'Pachira' which comes under the Surajpur urban area, compensation had to be calculated at the rate of Rs.8,270/- per sq.mt. The 3rd Respondent / Arbitrator allowed the application filed by the 1st Respondent and enhanced the compensation as per Annexure R/9 dated 30.06.2018. After obtaining copy of the 'enhanced award' on 25.08.2018, the Appellant chose to challenge the same by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 4315 of 2019 before this Court, mainly contending that the 'enhanced award' passed by the Arbitrator was a nullity, insofar as the 3rd Respondent was not notified as an Arbitrator by the Central Government in terms of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. The learned Single Judge observed that, absolutely no explanation was offered for the inordinate delay of 1 and 1/2 years and in the said circumstance, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay / laches.

(3.) Shri Ramakant Mishra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Appellant submits that, as per the scheme of the statute, if the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority is found inadequate, enhancement of compensation is possible on intervention of the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government in terms of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. It is pointed out that the acquisition in the instant case is for the 'Ambikapur-Pathalgaon sector' in respect of the National Highway No. 43 (old No. NH-78); for which no Arbitrator has been appointed as discernible from Annexure A/2 issued by the Executive Engineer. It is further pointed out that no notice of the proceedings was ever issued by the 3rd Respondent to the Appellant before passing Annexure R/9 'enhanced award' on 30.06.2018. On coming to know about the 'enhanced award', the factual position that no Arbitrator was appointed by the Central Government for the above segment was brought to the notice of the Authorities concerned. Reference is made to the letters dated 01.09.2018 and 27.02.2019 of the Chief Engineer, PWD National Highway, Raipur, who wrote to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, making a request for appointment of the Arbitrator; in the light of the objections against the award raised by the land owners.