Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saral Srivastava, J.
Bhartiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran -Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manju Dixit And Another – Respondents
Appeal Under Section 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation Act 1996 No. - 8 of 2021
Decided On : 19-04-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 and 34 - National Highway Act, 1956 - Section 3-A (1) - U.P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1942 - Arbitration Dispute - Agriculture Land - Claim of Compensation - Claimant is not satisfied with compensation - Appellant issued notification with respect to lands situated in number of villages for widening to four-lanes - By said notification area situated in village district Shahjahanpur owned by respondent no.1 was also acquired - Declaration under Section 3-D of Act, 1956’ in respect of land in question was issued - Competent authority while disposing of objection of respondent held that since land in question is recorded as agriculture land, compensation be calculated and paid as per circle rates applicable to agriculture land, it calculated compensation based on circle rates applicable to agriculture land and declared award - Feeling aggrieved by award, respondent no.1 preferred application for referring matter to Arbitrator, application of respondent no.1 was referred to Sole Arbitrator/Collector, Shahjahanpur for deciding claim of respondent no.1.
Finding of the Court : It can be concluded that competent authority or arbitrator in determining the compensation is only to consider market value of the land on date of notification under Section 3A of Act, 1956 and nature of land recorded in the revenue record is not relevant for determining compensation, court finds that District Judge has rightly issued direction to pay compensation of land treating it be commercial land, contention of counsel for appellant that District Judge has acted illegally and beyond its jurisdiction in directing appellant to pay compensation on commercial rate is devoid of substance and rejected - If claimant is not satisfied with the compensation, remedy to raise arbitration dispute by landowner is contemplated under Act with a purpose to grant quick relief to landowner to save the landowner from being dragged into long drawn routine litigation, it is obvious that legislature while inducting provision of arbitration under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 must have been conscious of fact that Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government would act fairly and independently and follow criteria given in Section 3-G (7) of the Act,1956 in determining compensation - Thus, it is manifest that provision of arbitration in Act,1956 has been inserted with a purpose to provide a quick remedy to landowners, therefore in such circumstances, it cannot be said that court is denuded of the power to modify award for ends of justice to provide relief to the landowner so that he may not suffer indefinitely to get just compensation as per law else any other - conclusion would thwart object of providing the remedy of Arbitration in Act,1956 - On perusal of judgments in respect of quantum of compensation mentioned in memo of appeal on which reliance has been placed by the appellant, Court find that none of them is applicable in the facts of the present case since those judgments have been referred under Indian Stamp Act whereas present case is under the Act, 1996 wherein Section 3-G (7) stipulates criteria which Arbitrator shall consider in determining compensation, this Court rightly modified the award and directed for payment of compensation treating land to be commercial land.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The appellant, Bhartiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran has preferred the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996') praying for setting aside the order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur in Arbitration Case No.16 of 2016 under Section 34 of the 'Act, 1996'.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant in the exercise of power under Section 3-A (1) of the National Highway Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as) issued notification dated 16.11.2009 with respect to the lands situated in the number of villages for the widening of NH-24 to four-lanes. By the said notification, Gata No.193 area 0.1260 hectare (hereinafter referred to as 'land in question') situated in village Maujampur, Tehsil Sadar, district Shahjahanpur owned by respondent no.1 was also acquired.
4. The declaration under Section 3-D of the 'Act, 1956' in respect of the land in question was issued on 08.10.2010. The competent authority while disposing of the objection of respondent held that since land in question is recorded as agriculture land, therefore, compensation be calculated and paid as per circle rates applicable to agriculture land. Accordingly, it calculated compensation based on circle rates applicable to agriculture land and declared the award on 05.10.2012 under Section 3-G of the Act, 1956.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the award, respondent no.1 preferred application under Section 3-G (5) of the Act, 1956 for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the application of respondent no.1 was referred to the Sole Arbitrator/Collector, Shahjahanpur for deciding the claim of respondent no.1.
6. The Sole Arbitrator/Collector, Shahjahanpur by order dated 30.06.2016 dismissed the application of respondent no.1 holding that he could not prove that the land in question was outside the purview of U.P. Road Side Land Control Act, 1942, therefore, the competent authority rightly computed the compensation treating the land to be agriculture land. Accordingly, it held that there is no illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the competent authority.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Sole Arbitrator/Collector, Shahjahanpur in Arbitration Case No.27 of 2012, the respondent no.1 preferred application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Shahjahanpur which was numbered as 16 of 2016. The District Judge, Shahjahanpur by order dated 06.08.2020 rejected the objection of the appellant against the application of the respondent under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. It set aside the award dated 30.06.2016 passed in Arbitration Case No.16 of 2016 and directed for payment of compensation treating the land to be commercial land.
8. The District Judge, Shahjahanpur in allowing the application of respondent no.1 after noticing in detail the scope of Section 34 of the Act, 1996 concluded that the award of the Arbitrator is against the public policy and principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it found no merit in the objection of the appellant and rejected the same. Thereafter, the District Judge proceeded to consider the issue as to whether respondent no.1 is entitled to compensation on the basis of agriculture land or commercial land. After examining the evidence led by respondent no.1, the District Judge found that the land in question was commercial land, and accordingly, it directed for payment of compensation of the land in question on the basis of the commercial rate applicable on the date of notification under Section 3-A of the Act, 1956.
9. Challenging the order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the District Judge in passing the order on the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has acted as an appellate authority and has reappraised the evidence on record which is be
Point of Law : Acquisition of Land – Compensation -None of them is applicable in the facts of the present case since those judgments have been referred under Indian Stamp Act whereas present case is ....
The nature and status of the land on the date of notification must be considered in determining compensation for land acquired under the NHAI Act, 1956, and settled legal principles must be applied i....
The potential value of land, particularly its location and possible future use, is a critical factor in determining compensation for land acquisition, and arbitrators have the discretion to enhance c....
Judicial review of arbitration awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited and interference is unwarranted unless there is a clear patent illegality or irrational....
The court established that under statutory arbitration for land acquisition, the authority must ensure fair compensation based on proper assessment and documentation, highlighting a constitutional ob....
The court upheld the authority to modify arbitration awards in compensation cases if the original decision is perverse or against public policy, ensuring fair compensation is granted to landowners.
Section 3(G) of Act read as determination of amount payable as compensation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
