Judicial intervention in arbitral awards is restricted, requiring adherence to statutory valuation methods ensuring fair compensation for land acquisition, as per applicable laws.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “A&C Act”) is preferred by the Appellant challenging the Judgment/Order dated 12.8.2024, in ARBP No. 10 of 2023, passed by the Learned District Judge, Cuttack, in an Application filed under Section 34 of the A & C Act, which was filed against the Arbitral Award, dated 23.8.2023, in L.A. Arbitration Case No.36 of 2017, passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Cuttack, wherein the learned District Judge, Cuttack, allowed the aforesaid Application setting aside the aforesaid Arbitral Award being contrary to the law as also passed directions for enhancement of compensation amount to be paid to present Respondent No. l.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition can be pithily summarised as under:

a. The present Appellant is the Land Acquisition Officer & Competent Authority (NH), Khordha, appointed and designated by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette as the "Competent Authority", under the provisions of Clause (a) of Section 3 of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956, to perform the functions of such Authority, under the NH Act, for such areas as is specified in the Notification, in respect of acquisition of land for the building (widening/six-laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway No. 16 (Old NH-5), in the State. In this connection, the Competent Authority & Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ’CALA’) is authorised to assess the valuation of ’Land’, hear the objections of the land-loser, and award due compensation for the same.

b. In the instant case, the Central Government issued the Preliminary Notification under Section 3A of NH Act, 1956, in the Official Gazette on 3.10.2012, declaring its intention to acquire land, in respect of various Villages (Mouza), including the impugned land of the Respondent No. l, located at Mouza- Bandalo, under Plot No. 1403, in Khata No. 751/159, pertaining to an area of Ac.1.670 dec., in Kisam-Gharabari, for the public purpose, namely, expansion and four-laning of the National Highway No. 16. Later, the same was published in the local newspapers on 19.11.2012 as mandated under Section 3A(3) of the NH Act, 1956. Subsequently, as mandated under extant law, the Land Acquisition Proceeding, was initiated for the purpose, by the present Appellant, vide L.A. Case No. 38/81/2013.

c. The Competent Authority-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (CALA) awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,38,18,998/- for acquisition of Ac 0.170 decimals, Kisam - Gharabadi pertaining to Khata No. 751/159, Plot No. 1403, Mouza - Bandalo belonging to the Respondent No. 1. The said compensation was awarded on the basis of benchmark valuation report of the CALA, which calculated Rs. 20 lakh/ acre for Mouza- Bandalo.

d. Aggrieved by the compensation granted by the CALA, Respondent No.1 invoked arbitration under Section 3G(7) of the NH Act. The primary contention of Respondent No.1 was that the CALA has not followed the procedure laid down under Section 26 of the RFCTLAR&R Act, 2013.

e. Vide award dated 23.8.2023, in L.A. Arbitration Ca