PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dated 20.07.2016, whereby the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short 'THE ACT') for setting aside award dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, have been allowed.

(2.) It is pleaded case of the appellants that their land measuring 4 marla out of land measuring 1 kanal 2 marla, comprising in Khasra No.3//21/2, 22/1/2 situated in village Latifpur, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, was acquired for public purposes for widening and four laning of Jalandhar" "Pathankot National Highway Road. The land was acquired by Notification published on 24.12.2004 and the competent authority assessed the compensation at the market rate as prevalent on the date of acquisition i.e. @ Rs. 27,000/- per marla for boundary wall and Rs. 50,000/- for commercial land. The appellants filed an application for enhancement of the award, which was allowed and the value of the land was determined as Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,50,000/- per marla. Against the said award, the Union of India" "respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed objections under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside award dated 25.03.2011, on the ground that the Arbitrator, while assessing the compensation, had not given adequate opportunities to the Union of India" "respondents. The Additional District Judge, on perusal of the proceedings which took place before the Arbitrator " "cum" "Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, came to hold that no sincere efforts had been made by the Arbitrator to serve the Union of India and thereby the Arbitrator did not follow the principle of audi alteram partem. Further the Additional District Judge, while relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in FAO No. 8032 of 2015 titled M/s Mahadev Rice and General Mills and another Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another decided on 2.12.2015, came to the conclusion that the objecting court has no power to remand the proceeding back to the Arbitral Tribunal, once the award has been set aside. Aggrieved against the said objections being allowed, the instant appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein argues that the only remedy available to the landlords to get compensation under the National Highway Authority Act is to approach an Arbitrator for enhancement of compensation as assessed by the competent authority and once the award of the competent authority is set aside, the landowners would be deprived of fair compensation. It is also argued that in similar cases pertaining to the same Notification issued under section 3-A of the National Highway Authority Act on 24.12.2004, similarly situated landowners have already been given compensation and the same stands deposited by the authority concerned. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed in FAO No. 1801 of 2017 titled Union of India and another Versus Hira Lal and others and FAO No. 3594 of 2015 titled Seema Kumari Versus Union of India and others, decided on 11.12.2018 which were deposed of in terms of judgment passed in FAO No. 2778 of 2016 titled Union of India and another Versus Daljit Kaur and others decided on 10.8.2016. Learned counsel seeks parity with the said landowners (in aforesaid cases) whose land also stood acquired under the same notification in the same village.