SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 1176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.
The National Highways Authority of India - Petitioner
Versus
Nihar Ranjan Sahu & Ors. - Opposite Partys
W.P.(C) No.27589 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.28108 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Umesh Chandra Mohanty, Adv.
For the Opposite Partys : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Adv

Writ jurisdiction is limited in arbitral matters; statutory framework designates CALA as the representative authority, and absence of NHAI does not invalidate arbitration proceedings under the National Highways Act.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3-G(5) - Arbitration Award - Legality and validity of Arbitration Award challenged - NHAI not impleaded as a party - Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 considered - CALA acted as agent of Central Government in arbitration proceedings - Requirement of NHAI's presence not established, as statutory framework precludes its role in compensation determination. (Paras 16-24)

(B) Arbitration Proceedings - Role of CALA clearly defined, serving as delegate of the Central Government, with no necessity for dual representation. (Paras 20-22)

(C) Judicial Restraint - Constitutional courts must exercise supervision with extreme caution, particularly where arbitral processes and statutory frameworks exist. (Paras 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
The National Highways Authority of India challenged an Arbitration Award that raised compensation for land acquisition significantly, arguing that NHAI needed to be a party to the proceedings as the executing agency involved in land acquisition.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the absence of NHAI from the arbitration did not invalidate the proceedings as CALA sufficiently represented the necessary authority.

Issues: 1. Whether the Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction concerning arbitral awards? 2. Should the Court interfere in the facts of the case given the statutory framework?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that writ jurisdiction should be exercised with great restraint, and it is limited to cases of manifest illegality or inherent jurisdictional error. The participation of CALA was deemed sufficient for valid representation of the Central Government in arbitration proceedings.

Result: Both Writ Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions involve common questions of law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments on the legality of the arbitration and parties' representation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court identifies issues for determination. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. scope of writ jurisdiction over arbitral awards. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. legislative framework for land acquisition and compensation process. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. role of competent authority in arbitration proceedings. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
7. court reluctance to intervene absent extraordinary circumstances. (Para 33)
8. dismissal of writ petitions on grounds of proper statutory adherence. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.

1. Since both the Writ Petitions involve a common question of law and substantially similar facts, they are being heard and considered together. However, this Court feels it appropriate to treat W.P.(C) No.27589 of 2024 as the leading case for proper adjudication of both the matters.

2. W.P.(C) No.27589 of 2024has been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the legality and validity of Arbitration Award passed in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.03/2019, NH - 6 dated 26.12.2023 u/s 3 - G(5) of the NH Act, 1956 passed by the Collector and Arbitrator, Keonjhar which directed the Tahasildar - Cum - CALA, NH - 6, Patna now LAO and CA, NH - 6, Keonjhar to recalculate the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.60,00,000/- per acre towards acquisition of Ac 1.17 dec of land pertaining to Plot No.289,290,297,299, 316, 287/528, 298/530, 311, 312, Khata No. 38/5, Kisam - Taila - I, Village Dumuriguda and to pay the differential compensation along with interest @ 9% over the said amount u/s 3 - H(5) of the NH Act, 1956.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

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

a. The present Petitioner is a statutory body established under the NHAI Act, 1988 being the Executing Agency on behalf of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

b. The present private Opposite Parties are the recorded tenants of the subject land.

c. That, Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide Notification No. S.O. 2768(E) dated 14.9.2013 notified U/s 3A of the N.H. Act 1956 to acquire the above subject land amongst others, in Dumurigoda for expansion of N.H.6 from Km.342+900 to Km.356+400 (Baharagora - Sambatpur Section) in Keonjhar District. The Notification was published u/s 3 - D of the N.H. Act 1956 on 10.9.2014.

d. The Tahasildar - cum - Competent Authority, LA, N.H. 6 Project, Patna (hereinafter referred to as CALA) was appointed as the Competent Authority to acquire the land specified in the Schedule annexed to the said notification for building(widening / four - laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 6

e. The CALA conducted detailed survey and after physical verification of plot / area etc. issued notice in favour of the private Respondents to receive land acquisition compensation worth Rs.4,16,863/- as determined in LA Case No.9/4/2016. This amount was arrived at by CALA keeping in mind the bench mark valuation report of the Village Dumurigoda @Rs.1,15,000/- per acre as per the cut off date of 14.9.2013 (date of notification). Furthermore, no registered sale deed was available for the Gharabari Kisam in the village during 2011-2013 and therefore, the CALA proceeded on the basis of the available bench mark valuation only.

f. Accordingly, CALA passed an award of Rs.4,16,863/- in favour of the private Respondents. This amount has admittedly been disbursed and received by the present Respondents.

g. Thereafter, the private Respondents filed Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.03/2019, NH - 6 before the Collector, Keonjhar - Cum - Arbitrator, NH - 6 Project, Keonjhar for redetermination of compensation.

h. In Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.03/2019, notice was issued on 23.2.2019. The CALA was duly served and represented

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top