| Headnote |
National Highways Act – ss.3J, 3G (7) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.28(2), 31(3), 34, 37 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.26, 28 – Lands of claimants/ respondents were notified for acquisition under the preliminary notification dtd.01.02.16 and 02.02.16 issued under NH Act – Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the compensation at Rs.2026/- and Rs.17200/- per sq. mtr respectively – Challenged by respondents, Arbitrator having taken into consideration the method adopted by the SLAO while determining the compensation, though adopted the same mode of determination by reckoning the guideline value provided by the Department of Stamps and Registration for the purpose of registration of sale transactions, however took into consideration the subsequent notifications dtd. 28.03.16 and 05.12.18 to reckon the guideline value – Market value was determined at Rs.15,400/- per sq. mtr and Rs.25,800/- per sq. mtr respectively and compensation was awarded – Appellant aggrieved by the method adopted by the Arbitrator in determining the market value and compensation filed arbitration suit u/s. 34 of the Act, 1996, dismissed by District Judge – Appeals also dismissed by High Court– Held: On facts, the reliance placed on the guideline value notification dtd. 28.03.16 for reckoning the market value of the property acquired under the preliminary notification dtd. 01.02.16, by itself cannot be accepted to be a patent illegality committed by the Arbitrator – However, the manner in which the notification dtd. 28.03.16 was relied upon and the value fixed under the said notification in respect of two distinct layouts was automatically made applicable to the lands in question despite noting the guideline value notified for the same survey number would indicate that the said exercise was undertaken without sufficient opportunity to NHAI – Further, appropriate reasons were also not indicated by the Arbitrator to arrive at the conclusion to uniformly adopt the value of Rs.15,400/- per sq.mtr fixed in respect of lands in a layout which was separately indicated in the notification – If there is evidence brought on record in the manner known to law with opportunity to the opposite side, it certainly would be open for the Arbitrator to adopt the said value – However, the pleadings in the claim petition and the award indicate that the appellant did not have sufficient opportunity before the Arbitrator to controvert the material sought to be relied upon by the Arbitrator nor has the Arbitrator indicated sufficient reasons which to that extent would indicate patent illegality in the award passed by the Arbitrator being contrary to ss.28(2) and 31(3) of Act, 1996 – That being the fact situation and also the position of law being clear that it would not be open for the court in the proceedings u/s.34 or in the appeal u/ s.37 to modify the award, the appropriate course to be adopted in such event is to set aside the award and remit the matter to the Arbitrator in terms of s.34(4) to keep in view these aspects of the matter and even if the notification dtd. 28.03.16 relied upon is justified as the same could be relied upon, the further aspects with regard to the appropriate market value fixed under the said notification for the lands which is the subject matter of the acquisition or comparable lands is to be made based on appropriate evidence available before it and on assigning reasons for the conclusion to be reached by the Arbitrator – In C.A. No. 4681/ 2022,arbitrator committed patent illegality in applying two different notifications in determining the market value – Only course open is to set aside the award and allow the Arbitrator to reconsider the matter on that aspect – Impugned order set aside – Consequently, the awards, connected awards which are the subject matter in these appeals are also set aside – Arbitration proceedings remanded – Stamp Act, 1899. National Highways Act – ss.3J, 3G(7) – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.26, 28 – Jurisdiction of arbitrator determining the compensation under NH Act vis-à-vis RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Scope of – Discussed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 –s.34 – Interference with an award, limited scope available u/s.34 – Discussed.National Highways Act – Arbitration proceedings relating to NH Act – Just and fair compensation – Process for determination of – Discussed – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.26, 28 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.28(2), 31(3), 34. |
