Courts should minimally interfere with arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or violation of public policy.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.2.2021 rendered in O.P. (Arb) No. 526/2018 of Additional District Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby the Award bearing No. 55 of 2015 in LAC No. 535 of 2013 of the Arbitrator dated 30.1.2018 enhancing the compensation awarded by the competent authority, has been set aside.

2. The facts in brief for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present case, are as under:

Land to the extent of 11.90 Ares, comprised in Re-Survey No. 95/22 of Kanjiramkulam Village, along with other parcels of land, totaling 70.05.07 Hectares in various survey numbers of Kottukkal, Thirupuram, Kanjiramkulam, Chenkal and Karode village of Neyyattinkara Taluk was acquired for the purpose of forming a bye-pass to avoid the Kazhakkuttam-Karode stretch of the NH 47 in Thiruvananthapuram city.

3. Declaration under Sub Section 1 of Section 3D of the National Highways Act was approved and published in the official Gazette of Government of India on 7.3.2013. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, National Highway, Thiruvananthapuram was appointed as the competent authority to determine the amount of compensation and vide order dated 2.12.2014 in LAC No. 535 of 2013, awarded compensation as follows:

4. Aggrieved by the above mentioned determination, land owners sought a reference to the Arbitrator and District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram was appointed as Arbitrator. Vide Arbitration Award No. 55 of 2015, value of land was increased to the extent of 50% of the value fixed by the competent authority with 10% user’s right for enhanced amount as per the provisions of Section 3G (2) of National Highways Act. In addition to the aforementioned, it was held that the appellant was also eligible to get 9% interest per annum on the total excess amount (50% increased land value + 10% user’s right) from the date of taking possession under Section 3D of National Highways Act.

5. Arbitrator did not grant benefit under Sections 23(1-A) and 2 of erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1874 and interest payable in terms of Section 28 proviso thereof, as held admissible to the land owners in respect of acquisition between 1997 to 2015, as per the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. Tarsem Singh and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 304.

6. National Highways Authority, aggrieved by the aforementioned Award dated 30.1.2018 preferred objection under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The contentions of National Highways Authority before the Objecting Court are as under:

1. Arbitrator did not follow the mandate contained in Section 3G(7)(a) of National Highways Act and awarded exorbitant amount towards compensation.

2. Arbitrator violated the provisions contained in Sections 75 and 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

3. The basic document adopted by the competent authority was not considered by the Arbitrator for fixing the land value.

4. The document bearing No. 1059/2011 of SRO, Kanjiramkulam was the most suitable document.

7. The objecting Court accepted the contentions of the National Highway Authority and set aside the Award of the Arbitrator. It is in the said background, the present appeal has been filed.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-land owner submitted that solatium and interest as contained in Section 23 (1-A) and 2 and interest payable in terms of Section 28 proviso, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would also be applied to acquisition made under the National Highways Act, for, the Government came out with an enactment called Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulty) Order 2015, effective from