JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. - The Union of India/National Highways Authority of India(NHAI) and the land owners are before this Court in appeals under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the 1996 Act').

2. The aforementioned appeals are being disposed of by a common order as these arise from one acquisition, involving similar facts and issues.

3. For convenience the facts are being considered from FAO- 756-2022 and cross appeal FAO-2065-2022.

4. The facts shorn off unnecessary details are that notification under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'the 1956 Act') was notified on 25.5.2012, proposing to acquire lands of twenty five villages on National Highway No.64 from 50.700 Kms to 209.500 Kms (Patiala-Sangrur-Bathinda stretch). The notification under Section 3-D of the 1956 Act was issued on 3.5.2013. The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (hereinafter referred to as 'CALA') on 15.1.2014 relying upon the prices fixed by Price Fixation Committee determined the compensation amount.

5. Aggrieved of the decision of CALA, the arbitration was initiated at the instance of land owners. The proceedings culminated in award dated 27.3.2019. The arbitrator relying upon the price fixed for village Badrukhan enhanced the amount from Rs.1.20 crores to Rs.1.50 crores per Acre for village Sohian, District Sangrur. The land owners who had received compensation before 31.12.2014 were held entitled to 30% solatium along with interest and for the land owners to whom the compensation was paid after 31.12.2014, solatium @ 100% was awarded. The claim that the land was commercial in nature was rejected as no evidence was adduced by either of the parties. Damages for segregation/sewerance was granted @ 30% of the market value subject to the condition that remaining land shall not be more than two acres. The land owners were held entitled to interest as prescribed under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act'). The objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act filed by NHAI as well as land owners were dismissed on 29.10.2021. However, the award was modified to the extent that amount of severance will be paid on market value of acquired land and not on value of the unacquired land. Further that the CALA would determine as to whether at the time of notification under Section 3-A of 1956 Act, the land acquired was joint estate or partitioned.

The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below

'However, it is clarified that amount of severance will be paid on the market value of acquired land and not on the value of un-acquired land. It is also clarified that CALA will see whether at the time of notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act the Khewat of acquired land was joint and whether any partition was reflected in the revenue record. So, each co sharer will not be separately entitled for the compensation on account of severance unless a partition is reflected in record."

6. Learned counsel for NHAI submitted that the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') would not apply to the acquisition in question. The submission is fortified by arguing that the conditions in clause 4.6 (iii)(a) and (b) of the guidelines dated 28.12.2017 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (hereinafter referred to as 'MORTH') (hereinafter referred to as 'guidelines') were complied with by NHAI. It is argued that the prior to 31.12.2014 full amount of the award was deposited. Decision of Rajasthan High Court in Gopa Ram v. Union of India, Civil Writ Petition No. 12746 of 2017, decided on 22.1.2018 was relied upon to argue that the terms 'deposit' and 'paid' used in guidelines have same meaning. It is contendeed that market value was to be determined as per the provisions of 3G(7) of the 1956 Act and other provisions of the 2013 Act cannot be mad