National Highway Act, 1956 – s.3G(5) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.25 – Union of India contended that the impugned Judgment suffered from an error – It was contended that in the impugned judgment, the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) through LRs v. The Land Acquisition Officer was followed, which applied only to the Land Acquisition Act and cannot be made applicable to the National Highways Act – Held: Union of India is right – Under the Land Acquisition Act an award that is made by the Land Acquisition is in the nature of an offer on behalf of the government and hence cannot be challenged by the government – Whereas, the scheme of the National Highways Act as disclosed by s.3G(5) is that the amount determined by the competent authority under the said Act may, on application of either of the parties, if it is not so acceptable, be then determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the central government – Thus, matters remanded to be decided u/s.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the High Court – In the aforesaid terms, the appeals are allowed. Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) through LRs v. The Land Acquisition Officer [2007] 3 RCR (Civil) 455 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.