UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. ARBITRATOR (DISTRICT COLLECTOR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The amount of compensation determined by the 'Competent Authority' owing to the acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') can be challenged before an 'Arbitrator' to be appointed by the Central Government in terms of Sec. 3-G(5) of the Act. In the State of Kerala, the District Collector of each district has been appointed as the Arbitrator by the Central Government under Sec. 3-G(5) of the Act. The short question that arises for consideration, in this case, is whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the appointment of an expert commission to assess the value of buildings/structures and also to lead evidence before the Arbitrator to establish their claim for the award of compensation at a rate higher than what has been awarded by the competent authority.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that applications filed by the petitioners for appointment of a commission for the inspection and valuation of the property, which was acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Development, as also the applications filed by the petitioners to examine certain witnesses are not being considered by the Arbitrator in proceedings under Sec. 3G (5) of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the only remedy available to the petitioners against an award passed by the Arbitrator under Sec. 3G (5) of the Act would be to challenge the award, as contemplated by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is submitted that the scope of challenge to an order of an Arbitrator under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is narrow, and therefore, the petitioners will be put to great prejudice if the entire evidence that is relied on by the petitioners to establish the claim for higher compensation is not considered by the Arbitrator in proceedings under Sec. 3G (5) of the Act. It is submitted that the Arbitrator acting under Sec. 3G (5) of the Act is a fact-finding authority, and the petitioners, therefore, cannot be denied the chance to seek the appointment of an expert commission for the conduct of an inspection and valuation. It is submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to lead oral evidence in support of their claim for enhanced compensation.