Make notes shorter: Calcutta HC to NHAI

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday read out Mark Twain to the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) when he had said “he was writing a long letter since he did not have the time to write a short one.”
Scoffing at 53 pages of written notes of argument filed by NHAI in the Calcutta High Court to explain their stand on a land compensation issue, the HC on Thursday reminded the central agency that “culling the crux of the arguments” from such long winding notes is “an unnecessary challenge posed to the court.”
The longish notes also did not help NHAI with the HC turning down its plea.
A division bench of justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and justice Prasenjit Biswas, in the Jalpaiguri circuit bench, was caustic. Limiting their judgment in four different cases – on similar grounds – filed by NHAI, the HC said, “The Court expresses its dissatisfaction at the lack of proper assistance insofar as the written notes of arguments are concerned. Such notes are supposed to outline in a concise manner the salient features of the oral arguments and citations relied on by the parties.”
Justice Bhattacharyya authoring the judgment said, “In the present case, the appellant (NHAI) has filed written notes of arguments of 53 pages (without any annexure), reminding one of Mark Twain when he famously commented that he was writing a long letter since he did not have the time to write a short one. The respondents (the land losers) are wiser by half, having filed written notes of arguments which extend to 25 pages (without annexures).”
The issue related to a 2019 land compensation claim order passed by a Jalpaiguri collector – acting as an arbitrator – to land losers. The NHAI moved court arguing that this order did not follow the Bengal govt’s notification on how the market value of land should be calculated to compensate land losers. The state urges that over 200% more or less than the average value of land should be disregarded as “fancy sale” or “distress sale.” In this case, the NHAI argued that the arbitrator has leaned on the higher values to give compensation making it a “fancy sale” and hence the compensation order should be recalculated. The HC did not agree, pointing out the fact that the arbitrator has factored in both the high and lower price ranges.