GIRIJA PRASANNA PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, impugned is judgment dtd. 30/11/2021 passed by the Court below rejecting his client's petition for setting aside award dtd. 15/2/2014 made by Collector, Jajpur regarding the reference on compensation for acquisition of his client's land and building. He demonstrates that there was direction for interim measure made by order dtd. 24/10/2013, on application by his client. The Tribunal asked concerned Executive Engineer and Special Land Acquisition Officer (NH-215) for joint enquiry and report to be submitted on the properties, in presence of appellant. By letter dtd. 2/1/2014 the Executive Engineer said as follows :-

(2.) He submits, for the Tribunal to thereafter say that his client did not adduce any evidence is a finding, that is perverse. There was clear direction of interim measure under sec. 17, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In violating the interim measure, mandate of the Act stood violated, resulting in purported award. The arbitrator after having directed the interim measure but thereupon accepting non-compliance is patent illegality on the face of the award.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of respondent and submits, the Court below by impugned judgment, upon careful consideration found that there was no patent illegality in the award. He reiterates, it was found both by the Tribunal and the Court below that appellant had not produced any evidence in support of his claim for higher compensation. No ground for interference could be made out. As such there should not be interference in appeal.