Point of Law: Acquisition of Land - Arbitrator granted enhancement of compensation - Arbitrator while rendering Award correctly took into consideration entire material on record, while determining rate at which compensation was payable - District Court while exercising power under Section 34 of Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. These are four appeals, two filed by the acquiring body i.e. National Highways Authority of India through Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, while the other two are appeals filed by the land owners, in the context of acquisition of their lands under provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“Act of 1956”). These appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) challenge judgments and orders passed by the Court of District Judge, Nagpur in applications filed under Section 34 of the aforesaid Act.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that lands belonging to the land owners in the present appeals located in village Kapsi (Khurd), District Nagpur, were sought to be acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (i.e. “acquiring body”) under the provisions of the Act of 1956. Notification dated 21.09.2009 was issued under Section 3-A of the Act of 1956, expressing the intention of acquiring the lands of the land owners. On 13.10.2010, a Notification was issued under Section 3-D of the said Act of 1956, pertaining to declaration of acquisition. On 08.12.2010, public notices were issued under Section 3-G(3) and (4) of the said Act of 1956, to interested persons. Thereafter, on 31.10.2012, the Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority issued an Award, determining the compensation payable to the land owners.

3. The Land owners filed applications under Section 3G-(5) of the Act of 1956, seeking enhancement of compensation and determination of the same by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator granted enhancement of compensation Rs. 3092/- per square meter to the land owners for their respective lands and further directed payment of additional amount of 10% of total compensation for loss of easementary rights, as per Section 3-G(2) of the Act of 1956.

4. The acquiring body preferred applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Court, Nagpur, in view of Section 3-G(6) of the Act of 1956, which states that the provisions of the Arbitration Act shall apply to every arbitration under the aforesaid Act of 1956. By judgments and orders dated 05.04.2019, the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, confirmed the quantum of compensation granted by the Arbitrator, holding that the Awards did not deserve to be set aside. Instead the said Court modified the Award by directing payment of amount of solatium of 30%, while deducting the grant of 10% amount for loss of easementary rights under Section 3-G(2) of the Act of 1956. The Court further directed payment of interest @ 12% p.a. as per Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and further granted interest @ 9% p.a. in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“Land Acquisition Act”).

5. It is relevant to mention here that the land owners did not file applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, but instead preferred applications under Order 41 Rule 22 r/w Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically claiming that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“Right to Fair Compensation Act”) ought to be applied for determination of compensation payable to them.

6. As noted above, the acquiring body, as well as the land owners have filed these appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, before this Court challenging the said judgments and orders passed by the District Court. This Court issued notices in these appeals. In the interregnum, judgments were passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, having bearing on the contentions raised by the rival parties, notably judgment in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Tarsem Singh and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 304. Consequently, when these appeals are taken up for final hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties have made submissions in view of th