Limited judicial interference under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act in NHAI land compensation awards; no re-appreciation of evidence or merits.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant/land owner against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.12.2020 passed in Arbitration OP.No.128 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The lands in survey Nos.192/2B, 190/6C2, 190/7B, 190/8A, 191/1A2, 192/2A, 192/3A1B, 192/3E1, 193/4M2, 193/5B, 192/2A, 192/3E1 and 194/4M2 measuring to a total extent of 6970 sq. mtr. in Chinna Salem Village, Chinna Salem Taluk, Villupuram District, belong to the appellant/ land owner, were acquired by the 2^nd respondent for laying 4 way lane road under National Highways Authorities Act. A sum of Rs.2,59,246/- was awarded by the 2^nd respondent to the appellant by fixing the land value at Rs.37/- per sq. mtr. The appellant, under protest, received the said amount and filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent Arbitrator on 28.10.2009. The 1^st respondent conducted the enquiry and passed an Arbitration Award in proceedings in Na.Ka(Arbit) A2/6542/2017-2 dated 12.04.2017 confirming the compensation fixed by the 2nd respondent/competent authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/land owner filed an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred as “the Act’’) in Arb.OP.No.128/2017 before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram and the same was dismissed on 21.12.2020. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/land owner would submit that the 1^st respondent/District Collector failed to appreciate the documents and representations submitted by the appellant to determine the proper compensation for the land acquired by the 3^rd respondent and that the tribunal ought to have appreciated that the properties which were acquired by 3^rd respondent are existing very near to the residential area, school, hotel, hospital, shopping complex , etc., and hence the same has to be valued as plotable site. Whereas, the 1^st respondent, without considering the same, dismissed the application. He further submitted that the properties acquired by the 3^rd respondent are house sites, hence it is not correct to fix the value of the property at the rate of Rs.37/-per sq mtr. Further learned counsel submitted that the Learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, failed to consider the contentions made by the appellant /land owner and erroneously dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, warrants interference by this Court.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, the lands in question were taken over by the National Highways. Thereafter, the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), Salem, awarded a sum of Rs.2,59,246/- by fixing the land value at Rs.37/- per sq. mtr. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the 1^st respondent was dismissed on 12.04.2017 by confirming the compensation fixed by the 2^nd respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the award passed by the competent Authority is just and requires any interference by this Court. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard on both sides, records perused.

6. The scope of interference under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act, regarding NHAI land compensation is strictly narrow, limited to setting aside awards for perversity, lack of jurisdiction or, violation of public policy. Courts cannot re appreciate evidence or substitute their own views on valuation as the arbitrator is the final authority on facts.

7. On perusal of records, it is seen that, the land owner, dis