RAGHAVAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking disbursement of the compensation pursuant to acquisition of the 6 th petitioner's property by the respondent/National Highways Authority of India (N.H.A.I). This case has a chequered history, which is narrated in brief herebelow: The landed property having an extent of 0.0316 hectares of land belonging to the petitioner was acquired for widening of National Highway-66, as per the National Highways Act, 1956. Ext.P1 Award, as per Sec. 3G of the National Highways Act, was passed based on Ext.P2 Basic Valuation Report (B.V.R). Challenging Ext.P2 B.V.R, the 6 th respondent filed an arbitration case before the District Collector/Arbitrator in terms of Sec. 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. The District Collector found that Ext.P2 B.V.R. is erroneous and consequently reduced its value. Challenging the same, petitioner pursued the remedy under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Court, Kozhikode. By Ext.P5 Order, the Award of the Arbitrator was set aside, finding violation under Sec. 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The 6th respondent/N.H.A.I. challenged Ext.P5 Order of the District Court before this Court, which however, was repelled, vide Ext.P7 judgment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter has attained finality by Ext.P7 judgment of this Court, wherefore, there cannot be any legal impediment for disbursement of the Award amount. Inasmuch as the Award passed by the Arbitrator has been set aside, the original Award passed by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (CALA) revives and disbursement has to be made in accord therewith, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/ (N.H.A.I) would submit that Ext.P5 Order setting aside the Award of the Arbitrator was only under Sec. 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, wherefore, the arbitration proceedings before the Arbitrator revives, automatically. Learned counsel would elaborate that Sec. 34(2)(a)(iii) is a power enabling the Court to set aside an arbitral Award, when the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the Arbitrator, or of the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present his case. In the instant case, the arbitral Award was set aside on the premise that the petitioner was not afforded with adequate opportunity to present his case. Inasmuch as the arbitral Award has been set aside on this technical ground, a remand is implicit, so as to revive the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator/Collector, is the submission made. Any interpretation otherwise would seriously impinge on the rights of the respondent/ N.H.A.I. to have the matter adjudicated on merits, especially when a remedy under Sec. 3G(5) of the National Highways Act enables the 6 th respondent to take recourse to arbitration. Learned counsel would rely upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s.ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited [2025 KHC Online 6421 :: 2025 INSC 605]. Learned counsel would invite the attention of this Court to paragraph nos.55 and 56 of the judgment to point out that a remit/remand is feasible in the instant facts.