IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 446 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 446 of 2022 ==========================================================

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Versus HEIR OF SARVIYA VIJALBEN PITHABHAI - NAJABHAI PITHABHAI SARVAIYA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. MAULIK NANAVATI, ADV. FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT PLEADER for the Defendant(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 11/08/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

The report of the Principal Civil Judge, Jafrabad in compliance of the order dated 24.12.2024 has been submitted by the office. A perusal thereof indicates that the sole private respondent No.1, namely heir of Sarviya Vijalben Pithabhai, has been served with the notice/rule of this appeal on 18^th January, 2025 through baili one has put in appearance on behalf of the said respondent. We do not find any reason to keep the matter pending.

2. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for Nanavati & Co. appearing for the appellant and learned AGP Ms. Hetal Patel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2.

3. In the similar fact and circumstances of the case, we have passed judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 while disposing of the First Appeal No. 537 of 2022 alongwith other connected matters. Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties could not dispute that the issues raised in the present appeal are squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.07.2024 passed by us. We, therefore, propose to decide the present appeal in the following terms, as decided in the First Appeal No. 537 of 2022 :-

“1. The only issue raised in these appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act’ 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1996’), is to the propriety of the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajula passed under Section 34 of the Act’ 1996 while setting aside the Arbitral award holding that the Arbitrator had passed the award without considering the substantive laws and the evidence on record, the Court has proceeded to decide two issues pertaining to the claim of the applicant for additional compensation on merits by appreciation of evidence on record.

2. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 03.01.2022 passed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 indicates that the Court framed nine issues as under:

“4. Following issues have been framed vide Exh. 22 for determination of present applications.

1. Whether applicants can point out that impugned order passed by the learned arbitrator case No. 118/2019, Dt. 04/06/2021 is erroneous, capricious and perverse and or is required to set aside on the ground of patent illegality?

2. Whether the applicants / appellants prove that, the disputed arbiter award is in conflict with the public policy of India?

3. Whether the applicants proves that he is entitled to get the additional claim as prayed in to the prayer Ex. 1 & 12 vide Para No. 4 as a additional award?

4. Whether the applicants appellants prove that the compensation given earlier was not adequate?

5. Whether the applicants / appellants proves that the higher market rate was applied in the award of another land owner for the same types of land in same area and rate for the agriculture land, industrial land and non- agriculture land's rate was difierent and higher than the present disputed land?

6. Whether the applicants / appellants prove that the compensation given for house / building and trees was not adequate and he is entitled to get additional compensation?

7. Whether the opponent / respondent proves that the award passed by the opponent No. 1 is fare, just, proper and decided judiciously?

8.