The court ruled that an additional award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act merges with the primary award, making partial challenges impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. As all the Appeals are involving a similar issue, they are taken up together for decision. Writ Petition No.08/2024 is taken as lead case for consideration of facts and other material.

3. Present Appellant is challenging the order passed by Principal District Judge, Akola dated 21.03.2023 Below Exhibit-17 in Civil M. A.(Arb) No.82/2021, which was filed by the present Appellant and Below Exhibit-27 in Civil M. A. (Arb) No.75/2022, which was filed by the Competent Authority, thereby allowed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the “A & C Act”) filed by the Respondent No.2/NHAI in Civil M.A. No.75/2022 and dismissed the application under Section 34 of the A & C Act filed by the present Appellant Civil M. A. No.82/2021 and setting aside the additional Award passed on 27.11.2020 by Respondent No.1.

Facts in nutshell are as under :

4. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had published a Notification dated 25.11.2011 under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short the “NH Act”) for compulsory acquisition of the lands required for widening of National Highway No.6. It was published in the Official Gazettee on 07.06.2012. The land bearing Gat No.7, admeasuring 1300 Sq. Mtr. situated at village Babhulkhed, Taluka Balapur, District Akola owned by the Appellant was notified for Compulsory Acquisition. The Sub Divisional Officer, Balapur was declared as Competent Authority Land Acquisition (CALA). The Competent Authority had issued the final Notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act on 30.10.2012 in respect of the acquired land and after its publication, an Award for determination of compensation under Section 3-G(1) of the NH Act was passed on 30.03.2013 and amount of Rs.1,18,872/- came to be awarded to the Appellant.

5. The said Award was challenged by the Appellant under Section 3-G (5) of the NH Act to get the compensation determined through Arbitrator and for enhancing the compensation amount and various grounds were raised by the Appellant. As per of scheme of NH Act, the Central Government appoints the Arbitrator by issuing a Notification in official Gazette and accordingly, Additional Collector, Akola was appointed as an Arbitrator for the acquisitions made in the District of Akola for National Highways.

6. It is the contention of the Appellant that learned Arbitrator had partly allowed the application filed by the Applicant in terms of prayer clause 4(b) and 4(c) only and rejected all other prayers of Appellant without providing any reason for the same vide order dated 03.08.2019. As there were multiple claims which were raised during the arbitration proceedings, which was omitted by the learned Arbitrator in the Arbitral Award therefore, application under Section 33(4) for passing an Additional Award read with Section 33(1) of the A & C Act was filed by the Appellant in respect of such claims. The said application filed by the Appellant came to be allowed by the learned Arbitrator and an Additional Arbitral Award was passed under Section 33(4) of the A & C Act and thereby the Arbitrator awarded compensation amount of Rs.650/- per Sq.Mtr. based on ready-reckoner of “Lands on Highway” along with an amount at the rate of 10% as statutory easement rights on the enhanced compensation was granted and other claims raised by the Appellant were rejected. The said Award was challenged by the Appellant in Misc. Civil Application No.82/2021 under Section 34 of the A & C Act, praying for resumption of arbitral proceedings and passing rectification award for unanswered claims. The Respondent NHAI also challenged the arbitral proceedings by filing Appeal under Section 34 of the A & C Act and made a specific prayer to set aside only the Additional Award dated27.11.2020.

7. The contention of the Appellant is that NHAI did not pray for setting aside the enti