Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) Smt. Bela Das filed a writ petition before this Court in 2015. It was numbered as W.P. 30214 (W) of 2015. In that petition she wanted that her house in Ranaghat ought not to be demolished until compensation was paid to her in respect of an acquisition which had commenced under the National Highways Act, 1956. A Learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated December 23, 2015 had disposed of the writ petition as aforesaid by holding as follows:- "The determination of the compensation for any land or building or the completion of such process does not require the building to remain erect while the adjudication is undertaken. It is quite possible that the petitioner is dissatisfied with the paltry amount offered for her precious building. The arbitrator will decide on the appropriate compensation in course of the arbitral reference and the petitioner has even a right to challenge the award in accordance with law. W.P. 30214(W) of 2015 is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to protest the quantum offered to the petitioner by way of compensation, whether on account of the land or on account of the building standing thereon, but the petitioner's right to protest the same or seek enhanced compensation will not entitle the petitioner to resist the National Highways Authority of India or any person deputed by such authority to demolish the petitioner's building or any structure on the land in question. In the event the petitioner files a request for an arbitral reference with the competent authority, the competent authority should ensure that the reference is initiated at the earliest and that a notice of the first hearing of the reference is communicated to the petitioner within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order by the competent authority."
(2.) After the disposal of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has admittedly applied to the competent authority to refer the disputes to the arbitration under a representation dated February 22, 2016 in compliance of the said Order dated December 23, 2015. Therefore, the first limb of the said order has been complied with. However, though the learned single Judge had granted leave to the petitioner to make such a request by protesting the quantum of compensation, the second limb of the order that notice of hearing be first issued to the writ petitioner before the award was passed on the reference of the writ petitioner, was complied with. It is disputed either from the Bar or by showing any record by any of the respondents all of whom are represented today that the statement made by the writ petitioner at paragraph '12' of the writ petition is false and that there is any notice of hearing given before passing of the award.
(3.) At paragraph '12' of the writ petition the writ petitioner has stated as follows: "12. Your petitioner states that few days after receiving of the above mentioned arbitral reference dated 22.02.2016 the respondent No. 5 informed the petitioner that the Learned Arbitrator had completed the Arbitration hearing on 03.09.2015 and thus forwarded the synoptic order of that hearing vide Memo No. 219/L.A./N.H.A.I. dated 29.02.2016. Photocopy of the above referred memo dated 29.02.2016 and the copy of the alleged order of Arbitration are annexed hereto and collectively marked with the letter "P- 7".;