NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. LIYAKATH ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, dtd. 18/10/2021 in Arbitration Petition No.2/2021, confirming the order passed by the Arbitrator fixing the rate of Rs.1,03,000.00 per every cent of land along with other benefits admissible under the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act 2013 and also with 9% interest applicable under Sec. 3H(5) of the NH Act, 1956.

(3.) The main contention in this appeal is that the arbitrator as well as the trial Court while considering the matter fails to take note of material that there is no any basis for increasing the amount of Rs.1,03,000.00 per cent. The counsel appearing for the appellant also brought to notice of this Court point No.3 while fixing the amount. No doubt the arbitrator has taken note of the fact that Court has to look into the guidance value of the lands in adjoining villages as on date of Sec. 3A of the Notification, the guidance of the land are much higher than the guidance of the land in Bappanadu village and also in case of Chitrapur adjacent village of Bappanadu, the commercial guidance value of the land is Rs.77,00,000.00 per acre. The same was considered by the second respondent while passing the award for Chitrapur village and also an observation is made that when the parties suffer perpetual loss due to severing of this land from rest of this land and demolition of structure/building and destruction of forest, trees etc.,. Under the circumstances, the compensation fixed by the second respondent in the present case is not reasonable and awarded an amount of Rs.1,03,000.00 per cent and the same is questioned before the District Court and the District Court also having considered the grounds urged in the suit filed under Sec. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, comes to the conclusion that arbitrator has given the reasoning. But on perusal of the order of the arbitrator though reference is made with regard to the land of Bappanadu and also Chitrapur and the land acquired is situated in Bappanadu, wherein an observation is made that commercial guidance value of the land is Rs.77,00,000.00 per acre in case of Chitrapur, which is the adjoining village of Bappanadu and also the acquired land is dry land and also garden land and no commercial value of the said village is obtained while passing an order and there is no any basis for fixing Rs.1,03,000.00 and no examples are also given for having fix the said rate in respect of the Bappanadu in respect of the nature of the property which was acquired for formation of NH and when such reasoning is not given and only on imagination fixed the rate at Rs.1,03,000.00 per cent and in the absence of any guidance value and also the potentiality of the property which was acquired, matter requires to be reconsidered by the arbitrator and the Court while exercising the power under Sec. 34, not looked into the reasoning given by the arbitrator and arbitrator jumped into the conclusion making an observation that parties suffer perpetual loss due to severing of his lands from rest of his land and demolition of structure/building and destruction of forest, trees etc. and hence he had fixed the same and in order to come to such a conclusion, there is no any material with regard to demolition of structure/building and destruction of forest, trees etc. But comes to the conclusion that rate fixed is very meager and there must be material to come to other conclusion while fixing the rate of Rs.1,03,000.00 per cent and hence the appeal requires to be allowed and matter has to be remitted back to the arbitrator to consider the same and give a finding based on the material.