ADITYA KUMAR SAMARIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reportable Pronouncement Date: 4/12/2018 Determination of compensation for the land acquired by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has prompted all the appellants to prefer these appeals with a common grievance about its adequacy, being not satisfying the criteria and parameters prescribed under law. In substance, the afflictions of all the appellants are founded on unison grounds but for minor differentiation in factual aspects, therefore, all these appeals are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The undisputed facts, in brevity, are that at the threshold after following due process in adherence of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'Act of 1956'), NHAI acquired land of appellants for constructing bypass of NH-79. The competent authority, after issuing Notification under Sec. 3A of the Act of 1956, published the same in Official Gazette as well as two local newspapers. In the follow of action, objections of persons interested in the land, i.e., appellants, were heard and then by resorting to Sec. 3D of the Act of 1956, declaration of acquisition was issued, which was duly published. Later on, possession of the land mentioned in the Notification under Sec. 3A of the Act of 1956 was taken from the appellants and then competent authority determined amount of compensation payable to the appellants under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3G of the Act of 1956. The amount of compensation, determined by the competent authority, did not satisfy the persons interested in the land, i.e., appellants, and therefore, espousing their cause by indicating unacceptability of the compensation amount, they submitted applications before the Arbitrator, District Collector, Bhilwara under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 3G of the Act of 1956. The Arbitrator, upon consideration of the applications of appellants, found no infirmity in the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority and passed separate arbitral awards of even date affirming the determination made by the competent authority.

(3.) Feeling dismayed with the arbitral awards, appellants made endeavor to seek modification/setting aside of the same before District Judge, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned Court below') by laying applications under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Act of 1996'). Despite making sincere endeavor to persuade learned Court below that determination of compensation amount by competent authority is not satisfying the criteria laid down under sub-sec. (7) of Sec. 3G of the Act of 1956, the efforts made by the appellants proved abortive. Finally, the learned Court below dismissed the applications of the appellants on 8/11/2006 with separate orders leaving all of them high and dry. This sort of situation has compelled the appellants to invoke appellate jurisdiction under Sec. 37 of the Act of 1996.