Court held that an arbitrator cannot remand matters back to competent authority after initial determination, affirming the arbitrary powers under Section 3G(5) of NHAI Act and the doctrine of acquiescence barring the appellant's challenge.

ORDER :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant – National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act of 1996”), being aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2017 passed by Learned District and Sessions Judge, Sirohi. Learned court below, while dismissing the application preferred by the appellant under section 34 of the Act of 1996, affirmed the Arbitral Award dated 08.11.2013 and the order of the Competent Authority Land Acquisition (“CALA”) dated 13.05.2012.

2. The genesis of the present dispute lies in the Central Government’s project to extend National Highway No. 14 along the stretch from 246.000 kms to 306.400 kms. For this public purpose, a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“Act of 1956”) was issued on 27.09.2004, identifying various land parcels for acquisition, including Khasra No. 1240 in the revenue village of Santpur, ad-measuring 0.1537 hectares.

2.1. Following the statutory procedure for hearing objections, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 on 28.06.2005, whereby the acquisition of a portion of Khasra No. 1240, specifically ad-measuring 0.0758 hectares (“land in question”), was finalized.

2.2. Under section 3G of the Act of 1956, which provides for determination of amount payable as compensation to the owner and any other user of land whose right is affected by the acquisition, respondent no. 1/claimant submitted a claim petition before CALA on 23.11.2005. Thereafter, CALA, in order to determine the market value, sought the District Level Committee (DLC) rates from the Sub-Registrar, Abu Road. The Sub-Registrar reported that the commercial DLC rates applicable on the date of the Section 3A notification (27.09.2004) was Rs. 264/- per sq. ft. Consequently, CALA passed an award dated 24.07.2007, granting total compensation of Rs. 20,26,671.39/- in favor of the claimant.

2.3. Being aggrieved by the award, the claimant moved an application before the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. The Arbitrator vide order dated 25.03.2008 decided the application of the claimant and remanded the matter back to CALA with a direction to pass a speaking order. Upon remand, CALA re- examined the matter and, vide its order dated 21.11.2011, maintained the originally awarded quantum of compensation (calculated at the rate of Rs. 264/- per sq. ft.), while additionally awarding Rs. 4,48,465/- for a boundary wall standing on the acquired land.

2.4. The claimant challenged said order again before the Arbitrator on the ground that even after remand, CALA proceeded in a pre- determined manner and has passed the order dated 21.11.2011 without consideration of evidence available on record. Learned arbitrator, vide its order dated 23.07.2012, remanded the matter to CALA for fresh adjudication. CALA, after taking into account evidence available on record, passed award dated 13.05.2013 and enhanced the compensation by adopting market rate of Rs. 1,144/- per sq. ft., based on a certificate dated 25.09.2006, and thus revised the award from Rs. 20,26,671.39/- to Rs. 1,23,05,468.56/-.

2.5. The appellant challenged the said award of enhanced compensation before the arbitrator under section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. Learned Arbitrator, while dismissing the challenge, upheld t