The violation of the principle of natural justice in arbitration proceedings can warrant setting aside the arbitral award and remanding the matter for fresh arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Kausik Chanda, J. - These two appeals involve similar facts and points of law and are taken up for hearing and disposal together. We first deal with M.A.T. No.1520 of 2019.

2. The writ petitioners/appellants approached the learned Single Judge, inter alia, with the following prayers:

'B).. A writ in the nature of Mandamus by commanding the respondents to hold the hearing of the Arbitration proceeding in connection with the LA Case being No.64A/NH/10-11 and publish the award thereof, determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the Petitioners;

C).. A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Authorities to act in accordance with law and to grant and disburse appropriate compensation for acquisition of land of the Petitioners at the prevailing market value of the land along with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and S.O. 2368(E) issued by the Ministry of Rural Development of Government of India dated 28th August, 2015 and as per provisions of law as applicable immediately upon publication of such award of Arbitration Case in connection with L.A. Case being No.64A/NH/10-11;'

3. It is not in dispute that the lands of the writ petitioners/appellants situated at Mouza- Patuli, J.L. No.151, Ranaghat, Nadia were acquired by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) and competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 for the widening of National Highway No.34 into four lanes by L.A. Case No.64A/NH/10-11.

4. The notification for acquisition of such lands under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short 'Act of 1956') was published in the Official Gazette on December 15, 2009, and thereafter notification of vesting under Section 3D of the said Act of 1956 was published in the Official Gazette on August 23, 2010.

5. The appellants/writ petitioners in the writ petitions claimed that only in the year 2015, they were served with a notice dated June 11, 2015, to collect the compensation amount for such acquisition of lands. In the said notice, it was mentioned that in case the compensation was not acceptable, the writ petitioners might approach the arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the said Act of 1956.

6. It was the further case of the writ petitioners/appellants that on the basis of the prayers and the objections of the writ petitioners and some other persons, whose lands were also acquired in connection with the said land acquisition case, an arbitration proceeding was initiated in terms of Section 3G(5) of the said Act of 1956. The appellants have alleged in the writ petitions that thereafter they did not receive any notice of arbitration. The respondents sat tight over the matter and withheld the arbitration proceeding.

7. The appellants claimed that they were entitled to get compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as per the fourth schedule of the said Act (in short 'Act of 2013'). It has been pleaded in the writ petitions that no appropriate compensation had been released in favour of them and no award of arbitration pursuant to the petition filed by the appellants had been published.

8. It, however, appears from the order impugned dated June 21, 2019, that before the learned Single Judge the writ petitioners submitted that an award had been passed by the arbitrator without any notice to them and the copy of the award had also not been served upon them and the State also conceded that copy of the award was not served upon the appellants.

9. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the award to the writ petitioners within four weeks. Liberty was granted to the writ petitioners to challenge the award in accordance with law before the appropriate forum provided under the Statute and to take all the points available to them.

10. Before us, it