SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Gau) 579

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Rajib Kumar Bora, S/o. Late Moniram Bora - Petitioner
Versus
The National Highways Authority Of India, Rep. By Sri Manoj Kumar Das, Manager (Technical) And Ors. – Respondents
Arb. A. No.3 Of 2020
Decided On : 26-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Biswas.
For the Respondents: Ms. R. Borah, Mr. K.K. Bhattacharyya.

Point of Law: Section 3(G) of Act read as determination of amount payable as compensation.

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37, 34 - National Highway Act, 1956 - Section 3(A), (G), (5)(6) and (7) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land - Arbitral Award - Enhancement of rate of compensation - Appeal challenging impugned judgment and order passed for setting aside Arbitral Award – Appointment of arbitrator was also provided under 3(G) (7) and hence, award passed by arbitrator after assessment of compensation cannot be set to be illegal - Para 20.

Finding of the Court:

Objection was filed by appellant after notification of assessment of compensation, but, due to ignorance of Government side petition was disposed by commissioner-cum-arbitrator - Doboka circle has assessed compensation from date of publication under section 3 (A) of this Act as dispute between parties is only in regards to amount of compensation and for purpose of arbitrator was appointment by central Government and hence, arbitrator cannot be said as acted without any authority - Merely on ground that date was not mentioned on which notification under Section 3(A) was published for Kampur circle, entire exercise made by arbitrator while passing arbitration award cannot held illegal or without any authority - Appointment of arbitrator was also provided under 3(G) (7) and hence, award passed by arbitrator after assessment of compensation cannot be set to be illegal - There is no patent illegality committed by Arbitrator and award has been passed complying provision under Sections 3(G)(5)(6)(7) of National Highway Act – Court find that there are sufficient and justifiable ground to interfere in impugned judgment and for setting aside Arbitral Award which was passed.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Borah, learned for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K. K. Bhatacharyya, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the District Judge, Nagaon, in Misc(J)Case No.118/2009 allowing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the respondent No.1 and for setting aside the Arbitral Award dated 10.11.2008, which was passed in Arbitration case No.05/2008.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition is that, as per Section 3(A) of the National Highway Act, 1956, the National Highway Authority of India (in short ‘NHAI’) made a request to the Government of Assam for acquisition of land from the respective owners covered by different Dag and Patta numbers of village Bhelowguri Kissam, Mouza-Jamunamukh, under Doboka revenue Circle, District-Nagaon. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon, issued notices to the Patta holders, who are represented by the present appellant for acquisition of land. The land was supposed to be acquired for the purpose of construction of National Highway No.36 four lane by the NHAI. And, the land acquired under Kampur Revenue Circle which is contiguous with the land of the appellants under Doboka Revenue Circle and are of same category. Although, Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs) per bigha was assessed for homestead land, Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six lakhs) for commercial land and Rs.9,00,000/-(Rupees nine lakhs) per bigha for agricultural land under Kampur Revenue Circle. However, Rs.1,30,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty thousand) per bigha was fixed and later on awarded to the appellants for acquisition of their homestead land and Rs.59,000/-(Rupees fifty-nine thousand) per bigha for the agricultural land and only Rs.240/-(Rupees two-forty) for each betel nut tree and Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) for each coconut tree which were the rate fixed by the Government in the year 1990.

4. On being highly aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition before the respondent No.3 on 30.11.2006 for enhancement of the rate of compensation along with the details of their individual lands. But, as nothing was done in this respect, the appellant filed a petition for arbitration before the respondent No.2 on 18.12.2006, which was registered under Section 3(G)(5)(6) and (7) of the NHAI, Act, 1956 and under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On 20.08.2008, the appellants were present and also submitted their written statements along with a copy of land valuation of Doboka Revenue Circle and Kampur Revenue Circle. In the meantime, the appellants under compelling circumstances and on protest accepted the compensation.

5. The North Assam Commissioner, Tezpur, was accordingly appointed as the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner by the Central Government, and vide order dated 10.11.2008 in Arbitration Case No.05/2008, the Arbitrator had directed to pay compensation @ of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs) only per bigha to the appellants/pattadars, minus the amount already paid to them earlier within 01.12.2008 and also directed the respondents to submit their report on the action taken within 12.12.2008.

6. By challenging the aforesaid arbitral award dated 10.11.2008 the NHAI filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, Nagaon, which was registered as Misc. (J) case No.118/2009. The said Court, in wrong appreciation of the provisions of law as well as fact held that there is no provision in Land Acquisition Act for referring the dispute or disagreement with regard to the compensation for land acquired to an Arbitrator for an arbitral award after the compensation for acquired land was assessed by the collector, and accordingly, s

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top