BHARTIYA RASHTRIYA RAJMARG PRADHIKARAN Vs. RAJESH KAUSHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant through video conferencing and Sri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant who is present in Court. Sri Gaurav Pundir, learned counsel is also present through video conference on behalf of a brother of respondent no.1. His impleadment application stands rejected by order dated 25.11.2020. Hence, he was not heard.

(2.) The present appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the District Judge, Mathura in Miscellaneous Arbitration Case No.35 of 2017, Bhartiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Vs. Rajesh Kaushik and Others. By that order, the learned District Judge, Mathura has rejected the objection filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as not maintainable. That objection had been filed against the award of the arbitrator dated 25.10.2016, referable to Section 3-G (5) of The National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Highways Act') - arising from the order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the 'competent authority'. Perusal of that order reveals, amongst others, compensation for the 3600 sq. mtrs land, plot no.332/1M belonging to the respondent had been determined. Being aggrieved, the respondents had invoked arbitration under Section 3-G (5) of the Highways Act. By that award, the learned arbitrator, directed the 'competent authority' under the 'Highways Act' to redetermine the amount of compensation under Section 3-G (1) of the Highways Act.

(3.) Sole submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is, though there was no defect in the arbitration proceedings thus instituted, however, the learned arbitrator has acted without jurisdiction in remitting the matter to the competent authority to redetermine the amount of compensation. Referring to Section 3-G (7) of the Highways Act and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ C No.8347 of 2018 (Rajiv Memorial Academy Welfare Society Vs. Union of India and 4 Others, it has been submitted that the only power vested with the arbitrator was to determine the amount of fair compensation. While doing so, the learned arbitrator had no power vested in him, either under the Highways Act or the Act - to act as an appeal court or to even otherwise pass an order to set aside the order of the competent authority and to remit the matter back for redetermination.