IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Vijay Raj Singh And Others – Appellants
Versus
District Magistrate/Arbitrator And Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No.8519 of 2023
Decided on : 24-08-2023
National Highways Act - Land Acquisition - Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Section 3(I)(b) of the National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the award of the Arbitrator, seeking higher compensation for their land acquired by the National Highway Authority of India. They filed applications under Section 3(I)(b) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The subordinate court rejected the applications, stating that the court's jurisdiction in considering the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is limited and restricted, and that the relief of amendment is available only during the pendency of arbitral proceedings before the Arbitrator.
Finding of the Court:
The subordinate court held that the applications under Section 3(I)(b) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were not maintainable. It also emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the court in considering the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and the lack of power to allow amendments not pleaded before the Arbitrator.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the applications under Section 3(I)(b) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the court's jurisdiction to allow amendments not pleaded before the Arbitrator.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's jurisdiction in considering the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is limited and restricted, and it does not have the power to allow amendments not pleaded before the Arbitrator.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as lacking merit, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. No.2, Muzaffar Nagar rejecting the application no.58Ga under Section 3(I)(b) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1956’) read with Order 11 Rule 12 of C.P.C. and application 63Ka under Section 23(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1996’) in Arbitration Case No.779 of 2011.
3. The facts in brief are that land of the petitioners being Khasra No.82 admeasuring 250 square meters, village Husainpur, Bopada, Muzaffar Nagar was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'NHAI') for expansion of National Highway No.58 by issuing a notification dated 28.11.2005 and 24.11.2006 under Section 3A of the Act, 1956. The competent authority notified under the Act, 1956 prepared a draft award determining the rate of compensation at Rs.770/-per square meter to be paid to the land owners whose land had been acquired. The draft award was approved by the NHAI vide letter dated 27.02.2009. Thereafter, the competent authority passed a final award on 26.03.2009.
4. Since the rate determined by the competent authority in respect of land was much less than the prevalent market rate of the land in the area, the petitioners preferred an application before the competent authority for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The application of the petitioners was registered as Land Reference Case No.55 of 2011.
5. The petitioners challenged the award mainly on the ground that the acquired land have been declared by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jansath as non-agricultural land. It is further averred that acquired lands are commercial land, and therefore, the rate determined under the award is much less than the market rate of the land in the area which is about Rs.12,000 square per meter.
6. It would be apt to reproduce the relevant paragraph of the reference application of petitioners:-
7. On the basis of pleadings in the reference, the petitioners prayed for the following relief in the reference case:-
vr% Jheku th ls izkFkZuk gS fd mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;kphdrkZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj cktkj Hkko ds vuqlkj izfrdj ;kph dks fnyk;s tkus dh d`ik djsA^^
8. The reference was decided by the Arbitrator under Section 3H (5) of the Act, 1956 by order dated 01.09.2011 enhancing the land rate to Rs.1000/- per square meter by a common award.
9. The petitioners being aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator, filed an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar which was registered as Arbitration Case No.779 of 2011.
10. In the aforesaid arbitration case, the petitioners filed an application 58Ga under Section 3-I(b) of the Act, 1956 read with Order 11 Rule 12 of C.P.C. praying for a direction that respondents be directed to produce documents detailed in paragraph nos.1 to 8 of the said application on record before disposal of the case.
11. For better appreciation of facts, the relevant paragraphs of the application 58Ga which refer to documents in respect of which the petitioners have prayed for a direction to respondents by the court are reproduced herein below:-
1- ;g fd foi{kh la[;k 1 dks ftl uksfVfQds'ku ds ek/;e ls jSQjUldrkZ ds okn dh lquokbZ gsrq vkchZVªsV fu;qDr fd;kA bl uksfVfQds'ku dh izfrfyfiA
2- ;g fd foi{kh la[;k 3 dks us'kuy gkbZos vkFkksfjVh vkQ bf.M;k }kjk ftl uksfVfQds'ku ds }kjk l{ke izkf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;kA bl uksfVfQds'ku dh izfrfyfiA
3- ;g fd foi{kh uaEcj 3 }kjk jSQjsUldrkZ ds fo:) vius izLrkfor vfHkfu.kZ; fnukafdr 20-1-2009 tks fnukad 26-3-2009 dks foi{kh uaEcj 3 }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k esa izLrkfor vokMZ dks vius i= la[;k 101/NHAI/MZN/Camp fnukafdr 20-1-2009 ds }kjk thŒ,eŒ uS'kuy gkbZos vkFkksZf
Canara Nidhi Limited Vs. M. Shashikala and Others (2019) 9 SCC 462
Emkay Global Finance Services Limited Vs. Girdhar Sondhi (2018) 9 SCC 49
The court's jurisdiction in considering the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is limited and restricted, and it does not have the power to allow amendments not pleaded before the Arbitrat....
The court established that an arbitral award can be set aside if it contravenes the principles of natural justice and public policy, particularly when crucial evidence is introduced after the conclus....
Setting aside of Arbitral award – Section 34 application will not ordinarily require anything beyond record that was before arbitration and cross-examination of persons swearing in to affidavits shou....
The main legal point established is that objections challenging an award under the National Highways Act, 1956 are maintainable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and inc....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
Court held that an arbitrator cannot remand matters back to competent authority after initial determination, affirming the arbitrary powers under Section 3G(5) of NHAI Act and the doctrine of acquies....
The Court can partially set aside an arbitral Award and has limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court cannot modify an Award but can set ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.