Important points:
After making an elaborate survey of the rule position that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of the proviso to Section 28 will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act; the Apex Court thus declared that the provision of Section 3J of the National Highways Act is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore declared unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

K. HARIPAL, J.

1. These are appeals preferred under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the correctness of the orders of the learned District Judge, Palakkad in Arbitration O.P. No. 51/2012 dated 23.12.2015 and O.P. No. 305/2012 dated 17.12.2015, respectively. As the properties of both the appellants were acquired by the National Highway Authority for the purpose of widening the Valayar-Vadakkanchery sector of NH-47 under a common notification, and since common grounds were urged, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. 0.0245 hectare of land in Survey No. 211/4 in Block No. 36 of Kannambra-I village in Alathur taluk belonged to the appellant in Arbitration Appeal No. 20/2016 was acquired by the respondents for the above purpose and compensation was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The amount was received by her under protest and on the basis of the requisition made by her, Arbitration Application No. 98/2010 in LAC No. 109/2009 was preferred under the National Highways Act, 1956, which was considered by the sole Arbitrator, the District Collector, Palakkad and by order dated 20.08.2011 an enhanced compensation was granted to the appellant. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted her compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per Are and a total compensation of Rs. 2,65,252/- was allowed basing on comparable sales method, relying on the consideration shown in Sale-Deed No. 4720/2004 dated 20.12.2004. The Arbitrator enhanced the land value at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per Are and also granted 25% enhancement for the residential building and 20% increase for the value of the remaining structures. Thus, an additional compensation of Rs. 1,04,449/- was granted as enhancement, besides 9% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of dispossession. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant moved the District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge declined to interfere and the original petition was dismissed.

3. Turning to Arbitration Appeal No. 21/2016, which was also the subject matter of the same notification issued for the purpose of widening the Valayar-Vadakkanchery sector of NH-47, 0.0445 hectare of land in Survey No. 1/1 in Block No. 43 of Vadakkanchery-I village in Alathur taluk was acquired and the claimant was given a compensation of Rs. 3,37,337/-. Here also the Special Land Acquisition Officer had based upon the very same document, i.e. Document No. 4720/2004, while adopting comparable sales method. He also invoked the arbitration clause and moved the Arbitrator, the District Collector, in Arbitration Application No. 238/2010 in LAC No. 01/2009, who considered the claim. By order dated 25.07.2011, the Arbitrator granted an enhancement of Rs. 1,67,215/- which includes enhanced land value of Rs. 1,51,705/- enhanced value of structure of Rs. 309/- and Rs. 15,201/- as 10% user's right. He was also entitled to claim 9% interest on the additional compensation. Aggrieved by the order of the Arbitrator, the claimant moved the District Court with Arbitration O.P. No. 305/2012 and by the impugned order dated 17.12.2015, that claim was also dismissed by the learned District Judge.

4. Common questions have been raised in both these appeals. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to call for the trial records.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised mainly two arguments. Firstly, according to him, the claims made under Section 3G(7) of the National Highways Act were not considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Arbitrator, and, therefore, in order to prove the prevailing market value of the land and for quantifying the other damage suffered by the appellants, they may be afforded on