VIJYANT DAVRA S/O VISHWAMITRA, 342, RAJMAHAL KA TALAB, CHANDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have been filed by applicants under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of independent Arbitration Tribunal for resolving their disputes with non-applicants, namely, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, and Competent Authority, Land Acquisition (Sub Divisional Officer), Amber, District Jaipur.

(2.) Since facts of both the applications are almost similar, facts of Arbitration Application No. 2/2015 are taken for consideration for the purpose of their disposal. Facts, as averred in the application, are that applicant is an owner of land bearing khasra no.425 situated at National Highway No. 8, Village Salarwas, Tehsil Amber, District Jaipur. A part of that land, admeasuring 593 square meters, is subjected under proposed acquisition proceedings by the Central Government for acquisition of land for National Highways. The applicant received a letter from the authority whereby it was informed that compensation has been determined under Sec. 3(g) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in lieu of land admeasuring 593 square meters of khasra no.425. The applicant appeared before the competent authority and objected to the proposed acquisition and determination of the amount of compensation on the ground of its unjust and unfairness. The applicant even filed application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Annexure-A) before learned Single Judge praying that an independent commissioner may be ordered to be appointed by the nonapplicant no.1 to assess the true market value of the land with attached trees and other constructed structures. The applicant received a notice dated 30.05.2014 on 16.06.2014 calling upon the applicant to surrender the said land within seven days, otherwise competent authority will be authorised to take possession thereof and to demolish the construction/trees. If the competent authority is permitted to proceed then it will lead to irreparable loss to the applicant and that if the non-applicant is allowed to take possession of the land in question then the applicant will not be in a position to show the actual loss suffered by him due to in-existence of the demolished structures. To protect the interest and rights and in order to ascertain the real loss/damage, the applicant moved an application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District & Sessions Judge, for interim measures, which subsequently got transferred to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 14, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred an appeal before this court, which is pending consideration.

(3.) Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, learned counsel for applicants, argued that a piece of land out of the same khasra no.425 was required by the Central Government in the year 2009 and in lieu thereof the competent authority was pleased to determine the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 at the rate of Rs.4280.00 per square yards, whereas the market value of the purportedly acquired land is assessed to be Rs.2270.00 per square yards. It is contended that no valuation has been done for the construction on the said land and also number of trees is not counted in the record. It is contended that for protection of the rights of the applicant, a letter dated 30.06.2014 was written to the non-applicant for appointment of the arbitrator as per the mandate of law but the non-applicant did not pay any heed thereto. There has been no appointment of the arbitrator till date and applicant has been continuously under pressure for securing his rights. It is contended that in order to protect the interest and rights and in order to ascertain the real loss/damage, the applicant moved an application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District & Sessions Judge, for interim measures, which subsequently got transferred to the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 14, which came to be dismissed by cryptic and non-speaking order.