The main legal point established in the judgment is that the theory of deduction cannot be applied in cases governed by statutory guidelines, and the impugned order passed by the Court below did not warrant interference under section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT SUJOY PAUL, J. : – This common judgment will dispose of these batch of appeals which were analogously heard on the joint request of the parties considering the similitude of the questions involved.

2. Facts are taken from A. A. No. 46/2021. Respondent/claimant is owner of Khasra No. 73 total area 0.110 hectare. Out of this land, small piece of land was acquired. On 31-8-2015, the competent authority determined the amount of Rs. 95,16,384/- as compensation by treating the land in question as ‘agricultural land’. Being aggrieved by said determination of compensation made by the competent authority on 31-8-2015, a dispute under section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short ‘Highways Act’) was filed by respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator. Argument of Corporation :

3. The appellant entered appearance before the Arbitrator and filed a detailed reply stating that in case of raw land, necessary deduction would be applicable. Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on para-16 (vii) and (xiv) of the reply and contended that specific objection/ pleadings raised by appellant were not considered by learned Arbitrator.

4. Arbitrator passed the award dated 10-8-2016 whereby amount of compensation was enhanced.

5. The appellant feeling aggrieved by such enhancement, preferred an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘Arbitration Act’) before the Court below. The Court below by order dated 22-3-2021, rejected the said application preferred by the present appellant.

6. Shri Atul Nema, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation fairly submits that in all these appeals filed by the Corporation, the lands acquired are admittedly undiverted and undeveloped agricultural lands. The size of lands is more than 1000 sq.m. The Collector has issued the guidelines on 3-3-2014. In the Collector guidelines, there is no mention that initial 1000 sq.m. should be determined by reducing the size of the land as per section 59 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short ‘Adhiniyam’). In other words, it is argued that initial 1000 sq.m. of lands in all the cases are undiverted agricultural lands. If lands are to be developed, as per the Adhiniyam, certain portion of the land must be left for the purpose of development in view of statutory mandate ingrained in the said Adhiniyam. Thus, only 50% of the land out of 1000 sq.m. of land would be left as developed land. The compensation for this portion of land is to be quantified accordingly. The compensation would be applicable for 50% of the land and not for the entire piece of land of 1000 sq.m.

7. The next limb of argument is that the Court below has erred in rejecting the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act whereas a Coordinate Bench of Court below in MJC (AV) 165/2017, MPRDC vs. Damyanti Chouhan (Annexure A/2 in A. A. No. 8/2020) took a decision in consonance with the aforesaid argument of the appellant. Putting it differently, Shri Nema submits that the Coordinate Bench of Court below in Damyanti Chouhan (supra) opined that the 50% of initial 1000 sq.m. of acquired land alone deserves compensation. It was not proper for the Coordinate Bench of Court below to take a different view in the impugned order.

8. Shri Atul Nema, Advocate in support of his aforesaid submissions placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 15448/2017, Union of India vs. Savitri Devi, and urged that the ‘circle rate’ mentioned in this judgment is nothing but the ‘Collector guideline’. The Apex Court clarified as to how Collector guidelines can be prepared and to what extent they can be pressed into service. The said requirements are not fulfilled in the instant case. Similarly, judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma and others