Case Law Details
Murari Prasad Vs National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) (Patna High Court)
The recent judgment by the Patna High Court in the case of Murari Prasad versus the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) has stirred discussions regarding land classification disputes. The court’s direction to file an appeal instead of a writ has significant implications for the parties involved.
The crux of the matter lies in the dispute over the classification of land, specifically Khesra No. 3408, owned by Murari Prasad. The petitioner sought redressal through a writ petition to quash the order dated 23.09.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, dismissing his appeal in default.
The petitioner’s contention arises from the decision of the DLAO, Saran, Chapra, regarding the classification of his land. Despite initiating arbitration proceedings (Arbitration Case No. 13/2021), the petitioner failed to appear on multiple dates, resulting in the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution.
Subsequently, a restoration petition (04/2022) was filed, but it was rejected by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra. The petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the outcome led to the writ petition.
The dispute stems from gazette notifications under the National Highway Act, 1956, specifically S.O. 2706 (E) dated 21.08.2017, and S.O. 319 (E) dated 19.01.2018. These notifications pertained to the acquisition of land, including the petitioner’s, for the construction of the Chhapra Gopalganj section of NH-85.
NHAI’s clarification highlighted the legal recourse available to the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s choice to pursue further action lies within his prerogative.
In concluding the matter, the court directed the petitioner to avail himself of the liberty to approach the appropriate court for further recourse, if desired. The disposal of the writ petition underscores the importance of timely and appropriate legal action in resolving disputes, particularly concerning land classification issues.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for:
issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the order dated 23.09.2022 passed in Appeal No. 13/2021 by the Commissioner, Saran Division cum Arbitrator (respondent no. 3) whereby the petitioner’s Appeal No. 13/2021 has been dismissed in default.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision taken by the competent authority, the DLAO, Saran, Chapra relating to his land, Khesra No. 3408. So far as its classification is concerned, he moved before the Arbitrator, Saran Division, Chapra in Arbitration Case No. 13/2021. However, having been failed to appear in number of dates, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.09.2022.
4. Aggrieved, restoration petition was preferred vide number 04/2022 and taking into account that he do not have power to restore the petition, the said petition was rejected by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra.
5. Paragraph nos. 7.3 to 7.6 read as follows:
“7.3 Pursuant to the construction of Chhapra Gopalganj section of NH-85 (New NH-531) section, gazette r. notification S.O. 2706 (E) dated 21.08.2017 under subsection (1) of section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as “the NH Act”) was published. The said 3A gazette notification was published on 27.09.2017 in the newspapers “Danik Jagran” and “Hindustan” both in Hindi.
7.4. In the aforesaid 3A gazette notification, the Petitioner’s land having Khata No. 201, Khesara No.-3048, situated in Mauza Ekma, in Saran District was notified and categorised as developing land.
7.5 Subsequently, Gazette Notification no. S.O. 319 (E) dated 19.01.2018 under sub-section (1) of section 3D of the NH Act was published. The Petitioner’s land in dispute was also acquired and the same was published in the aforesaid Gazette Notification under subsection (1) of section 3D of the NH Act.
7.6. In the aforesaid 3D gazette notification, the Petitioner land having Khata No. 201, Khesara No.-3048, Area-0.026 Hectare, situated in Mauza-Ekma, in Saran District, was also acquired for the Construction of the Chhapra Gopalganj section of NH-85 (New NH-531) section and the Petitioner’s land was categorized as Developing land in the 3D gazette notification dated 19.01.2018.”
6. It has been incorporated in paragraph no. 8 that if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he has remedy to move under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’).
7. This counter affidavit was filed on 10.01.2023 after serving a copy upon the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no rejoinder/rebuttal to the said statement.
8. The NHAI has clarified the reason for classifying the land of the petitioner and if he is aggrieved and his case has been rejected though on technical ground by the Arbitrator, he still has remedy to move under Section 30 of ‘the Act’.
9 It would be appropriate that the petitioner approach the concerned Court, if he so wants.
10. The petitioner submits that he will be availing that liberty.
11. Granting such liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. It has to be taken into account that the petitioner had preferred writ petition and as such, in case there is any delay, it has to be considered in the aforesaid circumstances.
Author Bio
