Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Banwari Lal Sharma, J.
National Highway Authority of India - Appellant
Vs.
Arbitrator-District Collector Jaipur Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2770 of 2016
Decided On : 17-07-2018
LAND ACQUISITION - NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 - SECTIONS 3-A, 3-C, 3-D, 90-B - RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 90-B - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 - SECTION 34 - AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR LAND ACQUIRED FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION - DETERMINATION OF NATURE OF LAND - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARBITRAL AWARD.
Fact of the Case:
Central Government acquired land for widening/strengthening of National Highway No. 12. Respondent No. 3, who had obtained permission under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, to convert the land from agricultural to residential, filed objections to the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority, claiming that the land should be treated as residential. The Arbitrator upheld the objections and awarded compensation accordingly. The appellant, National Highway Authority of India, challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the land was agricultural and that the respondent was not entitled to compensation for residential land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Arbitrator's decision on the nature of the land was a question of fact and could not be re-considered in the objections proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court also held that the award was not against public policy and that the appellant's objections were not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the land acquired was agricultural or residential. 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to compensation for residential land. 3. Whether the Arbitrator's award was against public policy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the nature of the land was a question of fact and that the Arbitrator's decision on this issue was final and conclusive. 2. The court held that the respondent was entitled to compensation for residential land since the land had been converted from agricultural to residential by the Competent Authority under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. 3. The court held that the award was not against public policy since there was no allegation of misconduct against the Arbitrator and the award was not found to be in conflict with public policy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned order.
Banwari Lal Sharma, J.
Appellant-National Highway Authority of India has preferred this misc. appeal under Section 37 (1)(b) of Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case (Arbitration) No. 333/2015 whereby learned Court below dismissed the objections of appellant-petitioner submitted under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Central Government for the public interest intended to acquire certain land which was required for construction of the National Highway No. 12, JaipurTonk-Devali section for widening/strengthening of the road from 18.700 Km to 52.484 Km into 4/ 6 lane under section 3-A by notification dated 23.07.2009 published in the Official Gazette thereby declaring its intention to acquire the said land duly published under section 3-A-(3) in two local newspapers being "Dainik Badte Kadam" and "Khabron ki Duniya" on 3.09.2009 in Hindi language and invited objections within 21 days from the date of publication of notification under Section 3-A-(1) i.e. 23.07.2009.
3. Respondent No. 3 filed its objections under section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, alongwith a permission granted by Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner Zone-11, Jaipur Development Authority under section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (C.A.L.A.) while determining the compensation held that the Respondent No. 3 has sought permission under section 90B of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 and as such the land in question stood vested to the Jaipur Development Authority (J.D.A.). However, JDA did not issue any Patta in the nature of residential, commercial or industrial to the respondent No. 3. As such, C.A.L.A. vide award dated 25.06.2010, treated the nature of land as agriculture (Barani-3) and determined the amount payable to the respondent No. 3. Accordingly a report was sent by C.A.L.A. to the Central Government.
4. On 30.10.2009, Central Government issued a notification under section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 that by the notification of 3-A the acquired land in question bearing khasra no. 1877/2000 containing 1300 Square meter, Khasra No.1885 containing 1200 Square meter, Khasra No.1894 containing 700 Square meter, Khasra No. 1895 containing 2800 Square meter, Khasra No. 1896 containing 3100 Square meter, Khasra No. 1932 containing 4500 Square meter, Khasra No. 1933 containing 3100 Square meter, Khasra No.1934 containing 2500 Square meter, Khasra No.1935 containing 300 Square meter and Khasra No. 1941 containing 4500 Square meter situated at village Barkheda, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur stood acquired for the public purpose. The nature of the land as submitted as Barani-3 in the report of the Competent Authority was based on available revenue records, based on which the notification under section 3-D of the N.H. Act, 1956 was published which included the land of the respondent No. 3 amongst others, for the public purpose.
5. Competent authority passed an award on 25.06.2010 considering the fact that the land vested with J.D.A.
6. Respondent No. 3 filed an application before the ArbitratorDistrict Collector, Jaipur and submitted his objections against the award dated 25.06.2010 and learned Arbitrator vide award dated 06.04.2015 passed the award in favour of respondent No. 3, considering the fact that the land in question is residential one, as order under Section 90-B has already been passed in favour of respondent No.- 3, against which appellant filed objections under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur which was registered as civil misc. Case (Arbitration) No. 333/2015 and was dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.04.2016, against which this misc. appeal is preferred under Section 37(1)(b) of Arbitr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
