The court affirmed that arbitral awards should not be interfered with unless they are patently illegal or arbitrary, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under the Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT :

PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Shri Manu Saxena, along with Shri Badri Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Shri Prabha Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Appeal No. 17 of 2022 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these appeals.

Appeal No. 17 of 2022

3. The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the Arbitrator/Collector, Aligarh as well as the judgement & decree dated 15.01.2022 & 21.01.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2013.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that vide notification dated 10.06.2012, objections were invited for acquisition of land near Ghaziabad – Aligarh section, pursuant to which the appellants filed objection. Subsequently, the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer determining the compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, an application was filed before the Arbitrator/Collector, Aligarh was filed by the appellants; wherein, six issues were framed. He further submits that the land in question was purchased by the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 13.07.2010 for commercial purpose; wherein, a factory under the name & style of M/s Om Pure Water Bottling Plant was constructed. On the application of the appellants, the Arbitrator, vide impugned order dated 29.09.2013, modified the award passed by the competent authority and determining the compensation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Arbitration Case No. 80/2013 before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgement dated 15.01.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the competent authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the market value while determining the award as according to section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 2013'), the compensation has to be determined on the market or circle rate, whichever is higher, based on the best exemplars of previous three years, but the courts below have not applied their legal and judicial mind while determining the compensation. He further submits that no exemplar has been taken into consideration before determining the market value of the land and even the nature of the land and development in the vicinity of the area were also not taken into consideration while passing the impugned orders. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements of Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority [(2015) 3 SCC 49], National Highways Authority of India Vs. P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah & Another [(2022) 15 SCC 1] and Manoj Parihar & Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others [(2022) 14 SCC 72].

6. He further submits that the appellants have been deprived of legitimate claim of solatium and interest as per the Apex Court judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh [2019 (9) SCC 304]. He further submits that the court below ought to have allowed the solatium and interest. He prays for allowing the appeals.

7. Per contra, Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh, vide award dated 07.05.2013, has determined the rate of the land after taking into consideration the prevailing market rates at the time of publication of notification under section 3 (A) of the National Highways Act dated 10.06.2012. He further submits that the sale deeds, circle rates, valuation report in respect of the assets situated on the property, geographical location, e