Judicial interference under Arbitration Act Sections 34/37 limited to patent illegality, public policy violation, or natural justice breach; no evidence reappreciation; challenger's failure to timely lead evidence precludes setting aside award upholding reasonable compensation.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

1] By the present Arbitration Appeals, the National Highway Authority of India [NHAI] challenges the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, dismissing the appellants’ applications, to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator, granting compensation to the claimants @ Rs.7966/- per sq. mtrs. to the lands acquired from village Deolai, Taluka and District Aurangabad [Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar].

Brief facts leading to filing the present Appeals are as under :

2] The lands of the respondents – land owners situated at village Deolai were acquired for widening of National Highway-211 and the preliminary Notification for acquisition under Section 3-A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 [for short ‘Act of 1956’] was issued on18.09.2025. The Competent Authority passed award in respect of acquisition of the lands from more than 23 villages for National Highway-211.

3] The CALA passed first Award on 15.07.2017 in respect of the lands in village Deolai granting compensation @ Rs.7966/- per sq. meter for small lands and for large lands at lesser rates after making deductions.

4] The CALA passed second Award for the same lands of village Deolai on 28.07.2017 giving different rates of compensation, considering three different categories of the land @ Rs.4966/- per sq.mtrs., Rs.5000/- per sq. mtrs. and Rs.5500/- per sq. mtrs. Since the second award was passed for the same lands, the second award dated 28.07.2017 was challenged before this Court in various Writ Petitions. This Court, by order dated 26.08.2021 in Writ Petition Nos.12279/2019 along with connected Writ Petitions, set aside the second award dated 28.07.2017 of CALA in respect of the same lands of Deolai for which the first award was already passed. The second award of CALA was set-aside by this Court, being without jurisdiction.

5] The appellant–NHAI, thereafter, invoked Reference for arbitration under Section 3-G (5) of the Act of 1956 on 24.01.2022, assailing the first award dated 15.07.2017. The possession of the lands have been taken in 2016. There was no deposit made in terms of Section 3-H (1) & (2) of the Act of 1956 in terms of first award dated 15.07.2017, however, the amounts were paid in terms of second award. The Arbitrator passed an award on 19.01.2024 and dismissed the applications filed by the NHAI challenging the award of CALA dated 15.07.2017. The NHAI thereafter filed application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Court, challenging the arbitral award dated 19.01.2024.

6] The District Court by order dated 15.11.2025 dismissed the application filed by NHAI under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and maintained the arbitral award dated 19.01.2024. By the present Appeals, the appellant - NHAI has challenged the Arbitral Award dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Collector and Arbitrator, Aurangabad, so also, the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

SUBMISSIONS :

7] It is contended by the learned counsel Mr.Satyajeet J.Rahate for the appellant – NHAI that in all 91 sale deeds were received from the office of Sub- Registrar, Aurangabad. The CALA had called for the sale deeds of last three years i.e. 2012 to 2015 from the office of Sub-Registrar, Aurangabad. Out of 91 sale deeds, the CALA has selected 43 sale deeds from group-II land. Thereafter, the CALA, out of 43 sale deeds, had taken in all 22 sale deeds of Group-II land and proceeded to determine the compensation @ Rs.7966/- per sq. mtrs. However, the CALA, while passing second award dated 28.07.2017, had specifically rejected 10 sale deeds, which were abutting to the Highways. It is also submitted that the ready-reckoner was required to be called while making award by the CALA.

8] It is sub