JUDGMENT :

1. These two miscellaneous appeals are raising a common question of law, hence, on the request of learned counsel for the parties, both the appeals have been taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

M.A. No. 1010 of 2018

2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Patna in Miscellaneous Case No. 98 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the claimant-respondent no. 7 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1996”) has been allowed by setting aside the arbitral award dated 15.10.2016 passed by the Additional Collector in exercise of his power under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1956”). By the impugned order, after setting aside the arbitral award, the learned court has been pleased to direct the appellant herein to pay compensation of the land in question considering the nature of the land as residential.

3. This arbitral award pertained to the land bearing plot no. 368 in Mauza-Nathupur, Thana-Phulwarisharif, District-Patna measuring an area of two katha.

MA No. 1011 of 2018

4. In this appeal, challenge is to the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Patna in Misc. Case No. 99 of 2016 by which he has been pleased to set aside the arbitral award dated 15.10.2016 passed by the Additional Collector in exercise of his power under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3-G of the Act of 1956 in Vivachan Case No. 69 of 2014. The learned court has been pleased to set aside the arbitral award with a direction to pay the compensation of the land in question considering the nature of the land as residential. In this case, the land involved is Plot No. 292 in Khata No. 44, Tauzi No. 5075 measuring area two katha in revenue village Pakari, Thana- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:-

5. Mr. Kumar Goutam, learned Advocate representing the appellant in both the matters submits that the appellant is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order impugned in these two appeals to the extent that while setting aside the arbitral award, the learned court has committed an error of jurisdiction in changing the very nature of the land acquired by the appellant under the Act of 1956. This, according to him amounts to modifying the award which is not permissible in exercise of power under Section 34(2) of the Act of 1996. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Project Director, National Highways No. 45 E and 220 National Highways Authority of India versus M. Hakeem and Another reported in (2021) 9 SCC 1. Learned counsel further submits that the same view has been reiterated in a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authorities of India Vs. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvalah and Another reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 864. It is submitted that the appellant would have no objection if the Arbitrator reconsiders the entire matter in accordance with law and take an appropriate view of the matter as regards the value of the land to be fixed and the quantum of compensation but in no case, such a power may be exercised by the court dealing with an application under Section 34(1) of the Act of 1996. It is, thus, his submission that the impugned orders are bad in law and in the teeth of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, hence those are liable to be set aside to the extent that nature of the land has been declared as residential and direction has been issued to pay compensation treating the land as that of residential nature.

Submissions on behalf of the Claimant-Respondent:-

6. The claimant-respondent has opposed these two appeals. He has defended the impugned orders by submitting that the l