The court affirmed the discretion under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to remit matters to the Arbitrator for reconsideration of solatium, following the Supreme Court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of Section 3(J) of the National Highways Act.

JUGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, Yavatmal dated 11.10.2023 in M.J.C. no. 14/2016 by which the learned District Judge, has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.3 & 4 under section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred as ‘A & C Act’), whereby it has remitted the matter to Arbitrator i.e. respondent no.1 to resume arbitration and determine the claim filed by the respondent no. 3 & 4 afresh and especially consider the claim of the said respondents with respect to solatium within a period of three months.

4. Petitioner No.1 is the Project Director of National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter for sake of brevity referred as NHAI) which conducts its activities under the provisions and law contemplated under the National Highway Act 1956 (hereinafter referred as ‘NH Act’). The Applicant No.2 i.e. Government of India vide its Gazette Notification published the details of land in villages which were proposed to be acquired for the building (Widening), maintenance, management and operation on the stretch of land from Km 110 to Km 175.600 of Nagpur-Hyderabad Section of NH-7 relating to Village: Pandharkawda, Tah: Kelapur; Dist: Yavatmal and thereby declared the competent authority for land acquisition i.e. the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 followed all the parameters contemplated under Section 3(G)(7) of the NH Act and has passed the award dated 30.3.12 for Village: Pandharkawda, Tah: Kelapur; Dist: Yavatmal thereby granting the Respondents Nos.3 & 4 compensation to the tune Rs.36,01,773/- for their 0.5400 HR acquired property; in Survey No. 5/1. Thereafter, the present Respondent No. 3 and 4 has availed his statutory right under Section 3(G)(5) of the NH Act and has filed Arbitration application before the respondent No.1 i.e. the Arbitrator appointed under Section 3(G)(5) of the NH Act; for enhancement of compensation amount which was granted by the Respondent No.2 while passing the original award dated 10.01.2008. The said application was registered as Arbitration Case no.1/2008-09. The present petitioner has categorically opposed the application filed by the Respondent No.3 & 4 on all grounds. However, the Arbitrator i.e. Respondent No.1 decided the said Arbitration Case No.1/2008-09 and passed the award dated 04.09.2015 whereby it has partly allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay the Respondent no. 3 & 4 an amount of Rs. 4,28,65,200/- (Rs. Four Crores, twenty Eight Lacs, Sixty Five Thousand and Two hundred only) as compensation for their acquired land of 0.54 HR less the amount already received and also directed to pay to the respondent no. 3 & 4 additional amount of 10% of total compensation amount for the loss of easement right, if not already paid and to pay an interest @ 9% p.a. on the enhance compensation w.e.f. the date of notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 till the date of payment of enhanced compensation.

5. The present petitioners i.e. NHAI being aggrieved by the said order dated 04.09.2015, challenged the said award before the Ld. District Judge, Yavatmal under Section 34 of the A & C Act. The respondent appeared in the said matter and both the parties argued the matter before the Ld. District Court, Yavatmal. However, the suitable orders for final disposal were never passed and the matter is still pending since last more than 7 years before the said Court. Surprising, after lapse of more than 6 years from the date of inception of the original arbitration application, respondent filed application u/s 34(4) of the A & C Act before the Ld. District Judge, Yavatmal. Present petitioners duly objected to the said application moved by the respondent no.3 & 4 before the Ld. District Judge and presented arguments to the effect that the gross illegalities and errors made by the Ld. Arbitrator