Abhinav Mishra| Kirit P. Mehta School of Law| 9th June 2020
Case Name: Pritam Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Introduction
The case primarily deals with whether the competent authority have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of apportionment and whether when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner they can approach the HC under Article 226 or not. The Bench comprises of G.S Sandhwalia.
Facts
- The petitioner has approached the court seeking apportionment of compensation of the land which was acquired on 12/11/2017. The claim was on the basis of Sh. Jangir Singh s/o of Bhajan Singh since the petitioners allege, are the sons of Daman Singh s/o Bhajan Singh. It is their case that the said Jangir Singh has been shown as gair marusi in the column of cultivation since 1978-79 as per the jama bandis attached.
- The acquisition of land was under the National Highways Act,1956, section 3G(2) of which states that in any case of acquisition under the act there shall be an amount paid to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment to the land has been affected by such acquisition.
- Thus, the petitioner approached the court for apportionment of the compensation.
Laws and Rules used
National Highways Act, 1956.
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
Holding
The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable reiterating the decision of SC in the case of Union of India v. Satyawati Tandon & Ors. in which the apex court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available.
Brief analysis
The bench primarily dealt with two issues 1st whether the competent authority have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of apportionment and 2nd whether when an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner they can approach the HC under Article 226 or not.
The bench highlighting the Section 3H(4) of the act stated that in case of any dispute regarding the apportionment of the amount the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. Refering to the decision of Nirmal Singh vs. Union of India which held that the competent authority under 3H(4) cannot adjudicate the claim of apportionment made by parties.
Regarding the 2nd issue the court referred to apex court decision Union of India v. Satyawati Tandon & Ors in which the court held that in case the parties have an alternative and efficacious remedy the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised and since there is alternative remedy available to the parties under Section 3H(4) of the act the writ petition is dismissed.
Conclusion
The HC upheld the decision of the apex court and the rule of exhaustion of a remedy which says that persons should circumvent the provisions made by statute which provides for a proper and efficacious mechanism to deal with disputes.
Leave a Reply