IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that objections challenging an award under the National Highways Act, 1956 are maintainable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and incorrect labeling of the application does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeals have been filed against the orders passed by the District Judge, Jalore whereby the applications/objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’) as filed by the claimants-objectors have been rejected as being non-maintainable. The details of the appeals filed and the respective details of the impugned orders are as under :

2. For the present purpose of adjudication, the facts and dates of S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1805/2023 preferred against the impugned order dated 19.08.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.01/2023 (CIS No.01/2023) are taken into consideration.

3. The facts of the case are that Notification dated 20.08.2018, in terms of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) was issued for acquisition of land for the purposes of construction of National Highway No.754K of Amritsar-Kandla Project under Bharat Mala Project in Jalore District. Vide the said notification, the khatedari land of the claimants was proposed to be acquired. The objections qua the said acquisition were invited vide communication dated 07.09.2018 and the objections were even filed by the claimants on 18.09.2018. However, the said objections were rejected and the final declaration in terms of Section 3D of the Act of 1956 was made on 05.08.2019. The gazette publication of the said declaration was made on 06.08.2019.

4. Meaning thereby, the acquisition proceedings were finalised and the amount to be paid qua the acquisition was determined by the Competent Authority i.e. the Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer, Jalore on 21.11.2019. The said amount was determined on basis of the DLC rates as prevalent at that point of time.

5. Aggrieved of the determination (Award) dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Competent Authority, an application was preferred by the claimants before the Collector on 24.06.2021. The said application was nomenclated to be under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’). However, an application for an amendment was preferred subsequently with the prayer for the said application to be read to be one under Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’). Ultimately, the application as preferred before the Collector was decided vide order dated 25.08.2022.

Vide the said order, the Collector proceeded on to dismiss the application as preferred by the claimants while observing that the arbitration application as preferred by the claimants stands rejected.

6. Aggrieved of the order dated 25.08.2022 as passed by the Collector vide which, the determination/Award dated 21.11.2019 was affirmed, application/objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was/were preferred by the claimants before the District Judge, Jalore. Vide Order dated 19.08.2023, the learned District Judge, Jalore proceeded on to reject the said application/objections on the premise that the same was/were not maintainable before the Court. The learned District Judge observed that the application as rejected by the Collector was an application preferred under Secti