# Asha Ram & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1281 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-22 - **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Vipin Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/asha-ram-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-44184 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Railways Act, 1989 - S. 20F(6) - Determination of compensation - Role of Arbitrator - Mandatory duty - Land acquired for Dedicated Freight Corridor - Compensation determined by competent authority challenged before Arbitrator - Arbitrator partly accepted objection but instead of determining compensation himself, directed Chief Project Manager to redetermine amount - Held, under S. 20F(6), Arbitrator is mandatorily required to determine compensation - Delegation of such function to any other authority impermissible. Land Acquisition - Compensation - Adjudicatory function - Non-delegable - Arbitrator being statutory authority cannot abdicate his jurisdiction - Chief Project Manager not competent under statute to determine compensation - Impugned direction unsustainable. Interpretation of Statute - Use of word "shall" - Mandatory nature - Expression "shall" in S. 20F(6) denotes mandatory obligation - Arbitrator bound to decide quantum of compensation on merits. Writ Jurisdiction - Interference - Remand - Where statutory authority fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, High Court justified in interfering and remitting matter for fresh determination - Direction issued to Arbitrator to compute compensation expeditiously. In Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned part of Arbitrator's order quashed; matter remitted to Arbitrator for determination of compensation within stipulated time; directions issued for deposit and disbursement of compensation. ## Text 8 All. Asha Ram & Ors. Vs Union Of India & Ors. 1281 (2016) 8 ILRA 1281 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition / Writ C No.- 4035 Of 2016 & Connected With Other Cases Asha Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Praveen Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sudhir Bharti,Rahul Agarwal Railways Act, 1989 - S. 20F(6) - Determination of compensation - Role of Arbitrator - Mandatory duty - Land acquired for Dedicated Freight Corridor - Compensation determined by competent authority challenged before Arbitrator - Arbitrator partly accepted objection but instead of determining compensation himself, directed Chief Project Manager to redetermine amount - Held, under S. 20F(6), Arbitrator is mandatorily required to determine compensation - Delegation of such function to any other authority impermissible. Land Acquisition - Compensation - Adjudicatory function - Non-delegable - Arbitrator being statutory authority cannot abdicate his jurisdiction - Chief Project Manager not competent under statute to determine compensation - Impugned direction unsustainable. Interpretation of Statute - Use of word "shall" - Mandatory nature - Expression "shall" in S. 20F(6) denotes mandatory obligation - Arbitrator bound to decide quantum of compensation on merits. Writ Jurisdiction - Interference - Remand - Where statutory authority fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, High Court justified in interfering and remitting matter for fresh determination - Direction issued to Arbitrator to compute compensation expeditiously. In Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned part of Arbitrator's order quashed; matter remitted to Arbitrator for determination of compensation within stipulated time; directions issued for deposit and disbursement of compensation. (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) 1. We have heard Sri Pradeep Kumar along with Sri Praveen Kumar, the learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Agrawal, Advocate along with Sri Sudhir Bharti, the learned counsels for the Railways. 1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2. This group of writ petitions involves a common question of law and, accordingly, all the writ petitions are being decided together. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No. 4035 of 2016 is being taken into consideration. 3. It transpires that the land was acquired for Special Rail Project East Dedicated Freight Corridor, that was being constructed by the Ministry of Railways, Union of India. For the aforesaid purpose, various tracts of land were acquired under the Railways Act, 1989(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners' land being plot no. 178 measuring 0.7770 hectares was also acquired, pursuant to a notification dated 03.11.2010 issued under Section 20E of the Act. Possession was taken and thereafter compensation was determined by means of an award dated 26.08.2011 issued under Section 20F of the Act, whereby the petitioners were awarded a sum of Rs.9,95,560/- towards compensation. 4. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the determination of the compensation, filed an objection no. 34/2012-13 under Section 20F(6) before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, after considering the objection, partly accepted the contention of the petitioners holding that the land is within 200 meters of abadi and, accordingly, directed the Chief Project Manager of the Dedicated Freight Corridor to redetermine the compensation in the light of the observation made therein. 5. According to the petitioners, as per the order of the Arbitrator, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.2,00,65,255/- along with 12% interest as compensation taking the rate of land as per the circle rate. 6. Since the amount, as per the calculation made by the petitioners, was not released by the respondents, the present writ petition was filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to pay Rs.2,00,65,255/- along with 12% interest pursuant to the order of the Arbitrator dated 03.02.2014. 7. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit contending that, as per the calculation chart prepared by them, the petitioners are only entitled to Rs.23,38,560/- towards compensation. In paragraph 6 of the Counter Affidavit the respondents have contended that the petitioners have received two cheques of a sum of Rs.7,75,520/- each. 8. Sri Rahul Agrawal, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that during the pendency of the writ petition the entire amount has been paid to the petitioners. It was also contended that the petitioners, being aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator, filed an objection under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 9. Sri Pradeep Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners however submitted that the objection filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was withdrawn and there is no application pending as on date. 8 All. Asha Ram & Ors. Vs Union Of India & Ors. 1283 10. Be that as it may. We have perused the order of the Arbitrator dated 03.02.2014. We find that once the Arbitrator has accepted the contention of the petitioners in part, as raised by them in their objection, the Arbitrator should have proceeded to determine the amount of compensation instead of directing the Chief Project Manager, Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd., Kanpur to redetermine the amount. In this regard Section 20F(6) of the Act reads as under: " (6) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or as the case may be sub-section (3) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed." 11. A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or as the case may be under sub-section (3) is not accepted by either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator. The word "shall" is of importance, which indicates a mandatory tenor in the provision. In the instant case the petitioner did not accept the amount awarded by the competent authority under Section 20F(1) of the Act and filed an application under Section 20F(6) of the Act. The Arbitrator was required to determine the amount, which in the instant case has not been done. The Arbitrator instead has relegated the determination of the compensation to the Chief Project Manager, who in any case was not competent to determine the compensation under Section 20F(1) of the Act. 12. We, accordingly, allow the writ petitions and quash that part of the order dated 03.02.2014 passed by the Arbitrator by which it directs the Chief Project Manager of the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation India Limited to determine the amount of compensation in terms of the observations made in the order. We remit the matter to the Arbitrator with the direction to calculate the compensation in terms of the observations made in the order within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after hearing all parties concerned. In the event, the Arbitrator considers the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 11.04.2014 while calculating the compensation, it would be open to the petitioners to raise such objection as advised. 13. By an order dated 10.08.2016 we had directed the respondents to produce the bank drafts of the compensation, which was admittedly payable by the respondents. The bank drafts in favour of the petitioners have been produced before the Court. We direct the respondents to deposit these bank drafts before the Arbitrator on or before 05.09.2016. The necessary formalities of handing over the bank drafts to the petitioners will be done by the Arbitrator and the necessary drafts would be handed over to the petitioners within a week thereafter upon completion of necessary formalities. ----------- 1284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1284 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 22.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ABHAY MAHADEO THIPSAY, J. Application U/S 482/378/407 No.- 5166 Of 2016 Zareena ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Applicant: Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, Ved Prakash Tiwari Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate, Anoop Kumar Upadhyay Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 169, 170 & 173 - Scope and distinction - Release of accused during investigation - Magistrate's powers - Investigating Officer moved application seeking release of accused under S. 169 CrPC on ground of absence of evidence - Magistrate rejected application treating it akin to a "final report" and proceeded to assess merits - Held, S. 169 CrPC operates during investigation and empowers police to release accused where evidence is insufficient - It is distinct from report under S. 173 CrPC which is submitted on completion of investigation - Magistrate erred in treating application under S. 169 as a final report and in evaluating sufficiency of evidence at that stage - Magistrate not required to adjudicate upon merits prior to submission of police report under S. 173 CrPC. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 169 - Nature of power - Autonomy of Investigating Officer - Power to release accused for lack of evidence vests in police - Where accused is in judicial custody, police may seek appropriate order from Magistrate - Magistrate ought to give due weight to opinion of Investigating Officer unless there are compelling reasons indicating mala fides - Mechanical rejection of such request and adverse remarks against Investigating Officer held improper. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Investigation - Police report - Misconception regarding "charge-sheet" and "final report" - Code contemplates only one police report under S. 173(2) CrPC - Terms like "charge-sheet", "final report", "closure report" are colloquial and do not alter statutory scheme - Investigation may continue even after release of accused under S. 169 CrPC - Completion of investigation culminates only in report under S. 173 CrPC. In Result: Impugned order set aside; petition disposed of with observations clarifying scope of Ss. 169, 170 and 173 CrPC; no specific direction for release issued in view of pending bail application. (Delivered by Hon'ble Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, J.)