Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, DIVYESH A. JOSHI, JJ.
Kamlaben D/o. Mangalbhai Mathurbhai - Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer - Defendant
R/First Appeal Nos. 977, 978, 979, 980, 981, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987 of 2020
Decided On : 20-04-2023
For the Appellant :Mr. H.M. Parikh, Ld. Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jinesh H. Kapadia.
For the Defendant : Mr. Aditya Jadeja, Ld. AGP.
The main legal point established in the given judgment is that an arbitral award may not be binding on parties who were not part of the arbitral proceedings and did not consent to the award, as established by the legal provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sukalu Ram Gond vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (1994) 5 S.C.C. 570.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Arbitration Award - Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The judgment and order emanate from the common judgment and order dated 23.09.2019 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dabhoi, District Vadodara in Land Reference Case Nos.519 of 2004 to 529 of 2004. The court discussed the binding effect of the arbitral award passed by the sole arbitrator with regard to the compensation determined for the lands acquired of Village Simaliya, Taluka Dabhoi. The court examined the legal provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sukalu Ram Gond vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (1994) 5 S.C.C. 570, to determine the binding nature of the arbitral award on the present appellants who were not parties to the arbitral proceedings. The court found that the award passed by the Arbitrator would not be binding to the present appellants or the claimants and would confine to the five representatives who had participated in the proceedings since they had accepted such amount fixed by the Arbitrator. The court also highlighted the need for the Reference Court to establish the binding effect of the award and decree by leading evidence and the requirement of examining the evidence produced by the claimants. The court ultimately quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award and remanded the matters to the Reference Court for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The present first appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 emanate from the common judgment and order dated 23.09.2019 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dabhoi, District Vadodara in Land Reference Case Nos.519 of 2004 to 529 of 2004, wherein the Reference Court dismissed the land reference cases filed by the present appellants-original claimants based on the consent terms between the claimants and the acquiring body as recorded in the award dated 05.06.1992 passed by the sole arbitrator.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitral award passed by the sole Arbitrator would not be binding to the present appellants or the claimants and would confine to the five representatives who had participated in the proceedings since they had accepted such amount fixed by the Arbitrator. The court also highlighted the need for the Reference Court to establish the binding effect of the award and decree by leading evidence and the requirement of examining the evidence produced by the claimants. The court ultimately quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award and remanded the matters to the Reference Court for further proceedings.
Issues: The issues framed by the Reference Court were: (i) Whether the claimants prove that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and not proper? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get additional compensation? If yes, at what amount? (iii) What award and decree?
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sukalu Ram Gond vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (1994) 5 S.C.C. 570, which established that the arbitral award passed by the sole Arbitrator would not be binding to the present appellants or the claimants and would confine to the five representatives who had participated in the proceedings since they had accepted such amount fixed by the Arbitrator. The court also emphasized the need for the Reference Court to establish the binding effect of the award and decree by leading evidence and the requirement of examining the evidence produced by the claimants.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and award and remanded the matters to the Reference Court for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. Supehia, J.
1. The present first appeals filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 emanate from the common judgment and order dated 23.09.2019 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dabhoi, District Vadodara in Land Reference Case Nos.519 of 2004 to 529 of 2004, wherein the Reference Court has dismissed the land reference cases filed by the present appellants-original claimants. Being aggrieved, the claimants have filed the captioned first appeals.
2. From the text and tenor of the judgment and order, it appears that the land reference cases have been dismissed on the substratum of the consent terms between the claimants, i.e. the appellants and the acquiring body, as recorded in the award dated 05.06.1992 passed by the sole arbitrator.
3. Learned senior advocate Mr. H.M. Parikh assisted by learned advocate Mr. Jinesh Kapadia has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, rejecting the reference proceedings on the basis of the consent is absolutely misconceived. It is submitted that the reference proceedings have been rejected on the basis of the award passed by the sole arbitrator dated 05.06.1992 in LAQ No.10 of 1990 without the same being produced on record by either of the parties. It is submitted that the Reference Court has observed that as none of the parties have produced the copy of the arbitral award, the reference proceedings are rejected and, hence, the Reference Court, without examining the value of the land which was acquired of Village Simaliya, Taluka Dabhoi, District Vadodara, the reference proceedings could not have been rejected. Learned senior advocate Mr. Parikh has submitted that for the purpose of acquisition of the land of the said village, Section 4 notification under the Act was published on 09.08.1990 and before the aforesaid notification was published, the award dated 16.07.1990 was passed by the arbitrator. It is submitted that after the aforesaid award was passed by the Arbitrator, the Land Acquiring Body should not have further issued Section 4 notification under the Act and if the same is issued, then the claims of the claimants should have been appropriately considered by assessing the value of the lands which were acquired.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Parikh has submitted that the claimants of six villages having a population of 556 residents, were represented by six persons from each village, and only upon their say, the arbitrator had passed the order fixing the compensation of the land which was acquired at Rs.23,000/- per Acre. The said price is inclusive of solatium and statutory interest. Learned senior advocate has further submitted that even if the aforesaid price is fixed, the same can only be binding to the persons who were parties to such arbitration proceedings and not to other claimants. Learned senior advocate has further submitted that right from the beginning, when Section 4 notification of the Act was issued, the appellants-claimants were raising objections with regard to the fixation of price by the arbitrator and, hence, the Reference Court was required to examine such aspect and the reference cases could not have been dismissed solely on the basis of the award of the arbitrator. Learned senior advocate Mr. Parikh has submitted that though the claimants, in support of their claim of compensation at Rs.144/- per sq. mtr. had placed reliance on the judgment and award passed by 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in LRC (M) No.805 of 1992 at Exh.33 for the lands acquired at Village Dabhoi, the said evidence was disbelieved only for the reason that Dabhoi is a developed municipal area and Village Simaliya, which is at a distance of about 6.5 kilometer. It is submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the lands of Village Dabhoi was published on 15.12.1986, whereas in the present case, Section 4 notificat
