The court affirmed the right of land losers to receive statutory benefits of solatium and interest, emphasizing the necessity of including these in the Arbitrator's Award.

JUDGMENT :

(R.V. Ghuge, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the respective sides.

2. We have extensively heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides and have perused the Petition paper book with their assistance. We have considered the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304; National Highway Authority of India Vs. M. Hakeem and Anr., AIR 2021 SC 3471 and Narayan Das Jain Vs. Agra Nagar Mahapalika, (1991) 4 SCC 212. It is trite law that the statutory benefits to be computed on the quantum of compensation, have to be granted by mathematical calculations, by the Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the 1956 Act').

3. The question raised in this Writ Petition is, as to what should be the remedy to the Petitioners/land losers to seek such statutory benefits of solatium and interest component, as per the Notification issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, dated 15/03/2013, and the Notification dated 28/08/2015, issued under Section 105(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the 2013 Act').

4. It is apparent that the Award under Section 3-G(5) is dated 20/07/2023. Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates that, an Arbitral Award is to be signed and such a signed copy is to be delivered to each of the parties. The Petitioners have placed a photostat copy of the said Award in the Petition paper book, which was filed on 20/09/2023.

5. It is submitted across the bar that this Award, by way of a signed copy, was received by the Petitioners after the filing of this Writ Petition. It is contended that, immediately an Application was made through the learned Advocate representing these Petitioners, on 09/10/2023, bringing it to the notice of the Arbitrator that the Award is bereft of the statutory benefits, and though the Arbitrator has recorded in paragraph No.14 of the Award that solatium and multiplier based on the lands acquired, are benefits that are payable to the land losers, such benefits were not granted in the operative part of the order, more specifically, the solatium amount. The said Application is still pending before the Arbitrator, which is said to have been filed under Section 33(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Notices to the respective sides have also been given.

6. The learned Advocate for the Respondent No.5/National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) has, on the one hand, reserved his submissions, for the reason that the above contention of the Petitioners is beyond the pleadings in the Writ Petition. On the other hand, he submits that, if such application is filed before the Arbitrator within a period of 30 days, the Arbitrator will have to assess, as to whether such application can be entertained, if it is beyond limitation. He prays that the contention on behalf of the NHAI may be left open to the Arbitrator to be considered.

7. It goes without saying that the Authority concerned must appoint trained Arbitrators since it is not a formality under Section 3-G(5) of the 1956 Act to appoint an Arbitrator and it is also not a mere formality that the Arbitrator should mechanically proceed and deal with the proceeding. The legitimate expectation from an Arbitrator is that he should deal with the matter meticulously and with full knowledge of the subject, since there are several issues which have to be adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator. If an Arbitrator is oblivious of the fact that the statutory benefits have to be granted on quantifying the compensation, this is bound to create obstacles, not only for the land losers, but even for the Statutory Authorities, who have to continue to litigate and spend on litigation. Things become worse for the land losers as litigation would be foisted upon them only for the reason