2020 Supreme(AP) 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, BATTU DEVANAND, JJ.
Kurra Venkateswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority, Manager-II, Vijaywada – Respondent
C.M.A. Nos. 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 1014 of 2008
Decided On : 01-05-2020

Point of Law: The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory role of Courts, for the review of the arbitral award only to ensure fairness. Intervention of the Court is envisaged in few circumstances only like in case of fraud or bias by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice etc. The Court cannot correct errors of arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. So the scheme of the provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the Court at minimum level and this can be justified as the parties to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude the Court's jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they prefer the expediency and finality offered by it

Headnote:

National Highway Act, 1956 - Section 3A(1) – Arbitration Act of 1940 - Section 15 , Sec. 34 Sec. 37 - Acquisition of Land – Computation of compensation – Central Government proposed to improve NH-9 by strengthening and widening the existing two lane road for land acquisition vide Notification published in Gazette – Whether the High Court in exercise of its power under Sec. 37 of Act can re-appreciate the evidence or look into the aspect of determining the quantum of compensation?Whether the same yard-stick as applicable to commercial transaction be extended to land acquisition matters - Held, manner in which the compensation has been fixed, more particularly with regard to the manner in which the rates of land are determined up to a particular extent of land and then drastically bringing them down to the immediate next piece of land, appears to be arbitrary and shocking the conscious of the Court. Hence, we feel that a uniform rate be fixed, as was done in the year 2008, when lands adjoining to the lands in question were acquired, for widening the highway. Though learned counsel for the appellant would submit that an amount of Rs. 100/- per square meter may be fixed uniformly, but the analogy suggested for arriving at such figure is not acceptable. After giving anxious consideration to the issue involved, we are of the view that the maximum amount that was fixed by the arbitrator i.e. at the rate of Rs. 60.70, rounding it off to Rs. 61.00 per square meter, be fixed uniformly to all the lands acquired from stretch-I to stretch-IV - C.M.A. are allowed

Facts of the Case:

Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, in exercise of its powers conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3(A) of N.H. Act, 1956 gave notice to acquire lands, in Nandigama, Kanchikacharla town and Paritala villages vide Notification dated 17-05-2002 in E.O. Gazette of India, issue no. 446, dated 17-05-2002. The notification for acquisition of land to an extent of 2,71.136 sq. mts. in Kanchikacharla village were to be acquired for widening N.H.9 i.e. for formation of bypass road at the said village. The same came to published in leading newspapers on 26-05-2002.

Finding of the Court:

the manner in which the compensation has been fixed, more particularly with regard to the manner in which the rates of land are determined up to a particular extent of land and then drastically bringing them down to the immediate next piece of land, appears to be arbitrary and shocking the conscious of the Court. Hence, we feel that a uniform rate be fixed, as was done in the year 2008, when lands adjoining to the lands in question were acquired, for widening the highway. Though learned counsel for the appellant would submit that an amount of Rs. 100/- per square meter may be fixed uniformly, but the analogy suggested for arriving at such figure is not acceptable. After giving anxious consideration to the issue involved, we are of the view that the maximum amount that was fixed by the arbitrator i.e. at the rate of Rs. 60.70, rounding it off to Rs. 61.00 per square meter, be fixed uniformly to all the lands acquired from stretch-I to stretch-IV.

Result: C.M.A. are allowed