The Gujarat High Court while refusing to entertain the writ petition moved by a woman seeking compensation for her property acquired by the government for its 'Bullet Train Project' stated that the same shall be decided by Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority.
The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri clarified that Chapter VIII of the Land Acquisition Act makes the above Authority 'couched with appropriate powers' to examine the issues which may arise in the process of land acquisition and compensation distribution.
"Prima facie, grievance about entitlement of compensation raised by the petitioner is a disputed question. Whether petitioner is entitled to or not, can well be examined by an appropriate forum meant for this very purpose under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In our considered opinion, writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum. It would be open for petitioner to ventilate her grievance before an appropriate forum available."
Stating that Act of 2013 provided a specific redressal mechanism, whereby if any dispute related to apportionment or entitlement raised, authority under the Act is entitled to adjudicate and redress the said grievance, the Court mentioned Chapter-VIII of the Act which has prescribed the establishment of Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority and said authority is couched with appropriate powers to examine the issues which may arise in process of land acquisition and related to compensation distribution.
Referring to D.N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka & Ors, 2015 Latest Caselaw 773 SC, the Court observed that a court cannot claim jurisdiction, if a statute define specific jurisdiction for particular matters.
"When a Statute prescribes a mechanism for redressal of grievance, same is to be availed of and it is settled position of law that High Court cannot usurp the powers of the authority, which is specifically created under the Statute to do a particular thing and as such, we are of the considered opinion that instead of opining on this grievance voiced out in the petition, we leave it open to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum as may be advised and permissible in law. Extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into a fact finding and adjudicating authority and as such, we are of the considered opinion that present petition is not entertainable."
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments