Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)

The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, “Act of 1996”) arises out of the judgment dated 4.9.2023, as passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Arbitration Petition No. 56/2018, whereby application filed by the appellant/National Highway Authority of India, under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was dismissed and the award as passed by the Arbitrator was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that the land of the respondent was acquired by the appellant in Mohal Rohin/473, Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur for the expansion of National Highway No.21 (four-laning). Notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 was published in the official gazette on 21.4.2012 for acquiring the land of the land owners for the aforesaid purpose. Notification under Section 3D(1) of the Act of 1956 was issued by the appellant on 15.12.2012. Notification under Section 3G(3) of the Act of 1956 inviting claims from the interested persons was published in the newspaper on 14.01.2013. The competent authority passed an award on 28.06.2013, whereby market value of the land in question was assessed at Rs.10,00,000/- per bigha irrespective of the classification and nature of the land in village Mohal Rohin/473

Feeling dissatisfied by the award, the respondent filed claim petition for enhancement of amount of compensation under Section 3G(5) of the Act before the Arbitrator, which came to be partly allowed vide award dated 03.04.2023 to the extent that the land owner/respondent shall not be entitled to any enhancement in the market rate of the land as awarded by the Competent Authority and shall be entitled to all statutory benefits granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil appeal No. 7064 of 2019 titled as Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh and others decided on 19.09.2019 reported in AIR 2019 SC 4689.

The appellant feeling aggrieved by the award, dated 03.04.2023 preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, on 07.10.2023, who, vide order dated 01.10.2024 dismissed the application filed by the appellant and upheld the award of the Arbitrator.

By taking recourse to provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1996, the appellant has now preferred the instant appeal challenging the order, dated 01.10.2024, as passed by the learned District Judge.

It is contended by Mr. Tarun Brakta, learned vice counsel appearing of the appellant-NHAI, that impugned order is erroneous, perverse and liable to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that the learned District Judge has not decided controversy in hand strictly in accordance with the Act of 1996, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Primarily, as urged by learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order as passed by the learned District Judge has been challenged on the ground that the relief of additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act has illegally been granted by the Arbitral Tribunal.

On the other hand, Mr. Munish Datwalia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has defended the impugned order and has submitted that no interference of any kind is required in the present appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file.

Before coming to factual matrix of the case, this Court shall delve into scope of interference while dealing with appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act of 1996.

In M/s C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs. IRCON International Ltd, 2025 INSC 138, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“27. As far as scope of interference in an appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration Act is concerned, the law is well settled. In the case of Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India and Ors. in paragraph 15, this court held thus: “15. The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act,