BHAGAWAT SONKER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as common question of law is involved for adjudication.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are as under:-

(3.) Arbitration Appeals Nos.13/2021, 23/2021, 33/2021, 26/2021, 31/2021, 30/2021, 32/2021, 28/2021, 27/2021, 34/2021, 21/2021, 24/2021, 35/2021, 22/2021, 29/2021, 25/2021, 16/2021, 15/2021, 17/2021, 18/2021, 39/2021, 9/2021, 38/2021 and 20/2021 have been preferred by the Union of India, through the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways against the impugned order dtd. 12/2/2021 passed by the District Judge, Baloda Bazar in a batch of civil suits whereby the learned District Judge, while partly allowing the claims/applications preferred by the private individuals/land losers under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 set aside the orders dtd. 17/1/2019 and 3/5/2019 passed by the Arbitrator/Competent Authority. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the private respondents have deliberately suppressed the fact that against the judgment passed in WA No.7/2019 (Ashutosh Agrawal and another Vs. Union of India and Others), review petition is pending till date. The private respondents/claimants have not affixed the proper Court fee as per the Act, 1996 and the said ground was raised before the learned District Judge, however, the learned District Judge, without considering the same, passed the impugned order. While passing the impugned order, learned District Judge enhanced the solatium by referring the judgment in the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal, referred to above. It is submitted that neither the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 nor the judgment in the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal, referred to above, is applicable retrospectively. The order dtd. 17/5/2018 passed by the District Judge, Baloda Bazar was without jurisdiction and is not binding on the appellant. Since the order dtd. 17/5/2018 of the learned District Judge was without jurisdiction, any subsequent order flowing therefrom becomes ipso facto without jurisdiction and for this reason, the order dtd. 17/1/2019 passed by the Arbitrator is also not binding on the appellant. Hence the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer/Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Officer, Bhatapara (henceforth 'the CALA') on 11/10/2012 in Land Acquisition Case No.01(01)/A-82/2011-12/Simga stood confirmed. The private respondents are not entitled to get 100% solatium provided under the new Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as the said Act is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, it was prayed to quash the impugned order dtd. 12/2/2021 passed by the learned District Judge in a batch of civil suits.