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 in petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Ms. Suchiti Chandra, learned counsel for National Highway Authority of India, who has joined the proceedings through video conferencing.

2. Since both the appeals involve a common question of law and fact, hence both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the Court shall be referring to the facts as they emerge from Appeal No. 55 of 2022, however, the relevant facts relating to the other appeal shall also be considered at the appropriate place.

3. The appellant, of the two appeals, are the land owners, whose land was acquired under the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as NHAI Act, 1956) under Sections 3 A & 3 D of the NHAI Act, 1956.

4. Chandra Kishori, the appellant of Appeal No. 56 of 2022 was the recorded owner of Plot No.546 situated in Village Bhikhra, Pargana Subeha, Tehsil Haidargarh, District Barabanki measuring 0.590 hectares. Similarly Om Prakash the appellant of Appeal No. 56 of 2022 was the recorded owner of Plot No. 254 measuring 0.0514 hectares situated in Village Gosupur, Pargana Subeha, Tehsil Haidargarh, District Barabanki.

5. The land of appellants of both the appeals were made the subject matter of notification issued under Section 3-A of the NHAI Act, 1956 dated 28.05.2012 and notification under Section 3-D was made on 15.3.2013 for widening of Lucknow-Sultanpur Highway from km. 35.670 to 64.100. The competent authority passed its award in terms of Section 3-G of the NHAI Act, 1956 and awarded a sum of Rs.6,98,923 to Chandra Kishori vide award dated 11.7.2016 and a sum of Rs.6,18,051/- to Om Prakash vide award dated 31.07.2015.

6. Being aggrieved both Chandra Kishori and Om Prakash escalated the matter by invoking the provisions of Section 3-G (5) and (6) and referred the matter for arbitration. The Arbitrator in terms of his award dated 19.9.2019 passed in Case No. 1689 of 2017 relating to Chandra Kishori and in Case No. 1690 of 2017 relating to Om Prakash did not find favour with the contentions of the appellant, of the two appeals, for enhancement of compensation and consequently, rejected their claim.

7. This award passed by Prescribed Authority dated 19.9.2019 both in case of Chandra Kishori and Om Prakash was further challenged by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Barabanki.

8. The petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 preferred by Chandra Kishori was registered as Arbitration Act No. 33 of 2020 whereas the petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 filed by Om Prakash was registered as Arbitration Case No. 34 of 2020.

9. Both the petitions under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 relating to both the appellant in the respective appeals, was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 45, Barabanki by means of order dated 26.9.2022. It is being aggrieved against both the orders i.e., rejection of claim by the Arbitrator vide its award dated 19.9.2019 and the rejection of the petition under Section 34 by means of judgment dated 26.09.2022 that the appellant of two appeals have assailed it before this Court by means of instant two appeals preferred under Section 37 of the Act of 1996.

10. Shri Abhay Raj Singh, learned counsel for appellants in the two appeals has primarily raised two points for consideration. It is submitted that in the case of both the appellants the land in question had already been declared as non-agricultural in terms of Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, however, the competent authority had given the compensation treating it to be agricultural land. It is the case of the appellants that since the land was declared as non-agricultural, hence the rate for determining the compensation which ought to have been adopted was one for non-agricultural but by adopting the rate as applicable to agricu