NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. SATISH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this appeal, appellant-National Highways Authority of India (for short 'NHAI') has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of High Court within scope of Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "Act of 1996"), assailing the dismissal of their objections under Sec. 34 of Act of 1996 by the Additional District Judge vide order dtd. 25/11/2017 and appellant is also assailing the arbitration award dtd. 3/12/2014 passed in case No.78/2011 by the District Collector, Jaipur who was sole nominated arbitrator by the Central Government under Sec. Sec. 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "Act of 1956") to determine the amount of compensation of land in question of respondent Nos.1 and 2, sought to be acquired under the Act of 1956.

(2.) The factual matrix as culled out from the record are that Government of India issued notification dtd. 5/2/2008 under Sec. 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'NHA Act') to acquire the land of various persons for the purpose of widening the National Highway No.8 from Gurgaon-Kotputli-Jaipur and thereafter declaration under Sec. 3-D of Act of 1956 was issued on 5/2/2009. An area of 2786 Sq.Mtrs of the land belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2 of Khasara No.646 and 655 situated at Mauja Lada Ka Bas, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur also came under such acquisition proceeding, which were recorded as agricultural land in Revenue Record, despite passing the conversion order on 8/10/2002. The competent authority determined the compensation by applying the then DLC rate of agricultural land, although the respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed for assessing the compensation by applying the commercial rate. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, their lands have been converted from agricultural to commercial vide order dtd. 8/10/2002 being No.Revenue-18 B(4) 2002/H/11950 passed by District Collector, much prior to issuance of notification dtd. 5/2/2008 under Sec. 3-A of Act of 1956. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 refused to accept the determined compensation by Competent Authority and claimed the higher compensation at the rate of commercial, therefore for determination of compensation, central government appointed the District Collector, Jaipur as sole Arbitrator to hear and decide the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Sec. 3-G (5) of the Act of 1956. The Arbitrator after hearing both parties had passed its award dtd. 3/12/2014 determining the compensation of acquired land of respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the commercial rate as applicable at the time of acquisition. the Arbitrator placed reliance upon the order of conversion dtd. 8/10/2002. The Arbitrator, in its award dtd. 3/12/2014 has clearly observed that the land under acquisition of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has already been converted from agricultural to commercial vide order dtd. 8/10/2002 and the copy of conversion order was also sent to Tehsildar Kotputli, Jaipur to make entries in revenue record but the conversion order could not enter into the revenue record and for which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may not be held guilty or negligent in any way. The arbitrator has held that once the land in question of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been converted into commercial land, they are entitled to get the compensation according to commercial rate and not according to DLC of agricultural land. Thus, Arbitrator has assessed the total compensation Rs.2,53,06723.00 payable to respondent Nos.1 and 2 in lieu of acquisition of their land.

(3.) It is needless to iterate that the scope of appeal under Sec. 37 of the Act of 1996, against the order passed under Sec. 34 of the Act of 1996 may not be expanded and stretched beyond the scope of interference with the arbitral award within the contours of Sec. 34 (2), 2-A and 3 of the Act of 1996. It is settled proposition of law that if any case falls within the four corners of any of the grounds as mentioned under Sec. 34 of the Act of 1996, the Court has jurisdiction either to set aside or to interfere with the abritral award. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in catena of judgments has considered and propounded as to when and under which circumstances, scope of Sec. 34 can be invoked to set aside or to interfere with the arbitral award. Few of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:-