The appeal emphasized the narrow scope of intervention under arbitration law, confirming reliance on smaller land sale deeds for larger valuations with required adjustments, and clarified interest awards must align with legal precedent.

JUDGMENT :

ROMESH VERMA, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, “Act of 1996”) arises out of the judgment dated 4.9.2023, as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Arbitration Petition No. 56/2018, whereby application filed by the appellant/National Highway Authority of India, under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was dismissed and the award as passed by the Arbitrator was upheld and the respondent/land owner was also held entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the enhanced amount of the market value of the land from the date of the publication of notification under Section 3 -A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, “Act of 1956”) till the award of the competent authority or till the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier, over and apart of 30% solatium and 9% interest per annum awarded by the Arbitrator.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the land of the respondent was acquired by the appellant in Mohal Palthin, Tehsil Ghumarwin for the expansion of National Highway No.21 (four-laning). Notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act of 1956 was published in the official gazette on 21.4.2012 and 17.8.2012 for acquiring the land of the land owners for the aforesaid purpose. Notification under Section 3D(1) of the Act of 1956 was issued by the appellant on 15.12.2012, 8.1.2013 and 15.3.2013. Notification under Section 3G(3) of the Act of 1956 inviting claims from the interested persons was published in the newspaper on 1.4.2013. The competent authority passed an award on 5.8.2013, whereby market value of the land in question was assessed at Rs.18,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of the classification and nature of the land in village Palthin.

3. Feeling dissatisfied by the award, the respondent filed claim petition for enhancement of amount of compensation under Section 3G(5) of the Act before the Arbitrator, which came to be allowed vide award dated 5.9.2017, whereby market value of the acquired land was enhanced from Rs.18,00,000/- to Rs.21,21,000/- per bigha and the respondent was held entitled to 30% solatium on the entire compensation amount and 9% interest on the enhanced amount payable from the date of taking possession till the deposit of the compensation.

4. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the award, dated 5.9.2017 preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur on 16.12.2017, who vide order dated 4.9.2023 dismissed the application filed by the appellant, whereby after upholding the award as passed by the Arbitrator, the respondent was held entitled to get 12% interest per annum on the enhanced amount of the market value of the land from the date of the publication of notification under Section 3 -A of Act of 1956 till the award of the competent authority or till the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier, over and apart of 30% solatium and 9% interest per annum awarded by the Arbitrator.

5. By taking recourse to provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1996, the appellant has now preferred the instant appeal challenging the order, dated 4.9.2023, as passed by the learned District Judge.

6. It is contended by Ms. Shreya Chauhan, learned counsel appearing of the appellant-NHAI, that impugned order is erroneous, perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the learned District Judge has not decided controversy in hand strictly in accordance with the Act of 1