NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. MAHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the National Highways Authority of India (for short, 'the NHAI') aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, on 29th Sept., 2012 under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), enhancing the compensation amount over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the acquisition of land for the purpose of widening of the road situated at Varur Village in Hubballi Taluk for widening of NH-4, Hubballi-Haveri junction under the preliminary notification dated 12th February', 2001 and final notification dated 5th Feb., 2002.

(2.) The NHAI had awarded the compensation at the rate of 538.20 per sq. mtr. or Rs. 50.00 per sq. ft. for the acquired land in Block No. 5 of the said Village after deducting 50% of the value towards the developmental charges vide order dated 26th March, 2004. But, the learned Court below in an application filed under Sec. 34 of the Act for setting aside the award filed by the land-holders-Smt. Mahadevei and others, decided the application as a suit and while decreeing the said suit, held that the deduction of 50% of the market value towards the developmental charges was liable to be set aside and the plaintiffs (landholders) were entitled for compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 75.00 per sq. ft. or Rs. 807.30 per sq. mtr. in respect of the said land with interest and other statutory benefits. Questioning the same, the NHAI has approached this Court by way of present appeal.

(3.) Assailing the said order, the learned Counsel for the NHAI, Mrs. P.R. Bentur, relying upon the several case-laws urged before this Court that Sec. 34 of the Act, under which an arbitral award can be set aside only on the specified limited grounds, the learned Court below has sat over the said Award as the Court of appeal and has enhanced the compensation amount, which it was not authorised to do. She has submitted that Sec. 34 of the Act does not permit such enhancement of compensation by the learned Court below and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. She has relied upon the following judgments in support of her contentions: