SOHAN DUBRAJ Vs. MOHAR SAIDUBRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought challenging the impugned order dtd. 20/7/2017, passed by the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, Ambikapur.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in question, situated in village - Cherwapara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koria was acquired for National Highway Development Project. The respondent No.3, the competent authority has passed the award dtd. 4/10/2018. A dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 regarding apportionment of the compensation amount. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Sec. 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956"), which was entertained by the Commissioner and the impugned order has been passed. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the proceeding drawn by the Arbitrator/Commissioner is illegal. The respondent No.1 was required to file application under Sec. 3H (4) of the Act, 1956, before the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, which is the authority to decide such dispute. The authority available under Sec. 3G(5) of the Act, 1956, is totally different field. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner is nullity and non-est in the eyes of law, which is fit to be quashed. It is also submitted that the application under Sec. 3G(5) of the Act, 1956 filed by the respondent No.1 was in fact an appeal praying to set-aside the award dtd. 04.10.2018, passed by the competent authority, which was not maintainable. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the respondent No.1 be directed to file application under Sec. 3H(4) of the Act, 1956, before the appropriate forum.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the petition and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in case of Tapan Kumar Basak v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 15769, in which it has been clearly held that award passed under Sec. 3G(5) of the Act, 1956 can be challenged before the appropriate forum under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1996") therefore, the petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It is submitted that it has been similarly held in case of Lalit Kumar v. Sanghavi (dead) through : LRS Neeta Lalit Kumar Sanghvi and Anr. v. Dharamdas V. Sanghavi and Ors., reported in (2014) 7 SCC 255 and also in the case of Bhaven Construction through : Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah v. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. And Anr., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 8.