IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7830 OF 2023 (AA)

BETWEEN:

SRI.M.A.GEORGE, S/O LATE ULHANAM ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT MUNDEKEL HOUSE, UDANE POST, SHIRADY VILLAGE, KADABA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 221.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATHISH V., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

PRAJWAL A Location: 1. THE ARBITRATOR AND High Court DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, of Karnataka DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU-575 001.

2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NHAI PIU HASSAN, HASANAMBA NILAYA, INDIRANAGAR, NEAR VARASIDDIVINAYAKA TEMPLE, SATHYAMANGALA LAYOUT, HASSAN-573 201.

3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (NHAI) NH.48, HASSAN - B.C.ROAD DIVISION, OPP. HDFC BANK, BH ROAD, HASSAN DIST-573 103.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHOBITH.N ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 AND R3 SERVED UN-REPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.06.2023 PASSED IN ARBITRATION SUIT NO.136/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DK, MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE ARBITRATION PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, R/W ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC, ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 24.06.2023 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (‘District Judge’ for short) in Arbitration Suit No.136/2019, whereby the learned District Judge has dismissed the said suit which was filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act of 1996’ for short) read with Order VII Rule

1 of CPC.

2. The facts to be noted for the purpose of this appeal are, the appellant herein was the absolute owner of the land in Sy.No.25-2B1B(P3) measuring 0.21 cents, 25-2B1B(P3) measuring 0.31 cents and in Sy.No.25- 2B1B1 measuring 0.05 cents (converted). Out of the total extent of aforesaid land, about 0.15 cents of land was acquired by the 2^nd respondent for widening NH-48. An amount of Rs.68,47,274/- was paid to the appellant as compensation.

3. The plea of the appellant before the learned Arbitrator was that, the 3^rd respondent has determined Rs.5,00,000/- for the RCC house of the appellant, which is only for half portion of the house of the appellant, which was demolished. According to him, the remaining portion of the said house is not useful to the appellant. Hence, the 3^rd respondent ought to have paid full compensation. The case of the appellant was, he requires about Rs.30,00,000/- for construction of new house. Further it was stated, there were teakwood and coconut trees, shop buildings, coconut oil mill and flour mill, etc., on the acquired land which were the source of livelihood of the appellant. The compensation determined is not in accordance with law.

4. We note, the learned Arbitrator has determined the claim of the appellant in the following manner:

“ORDER By exercising powers u/s 3-G (5 to 7) of the National Highways Act 1956 and as per the order of the central government No.NHAI/LA/RR/2001/9 Dated 11.04.2007 and also considering the fact that the acquired land is Converted Residential & Dry in nature, it is ordered that compensation for the scheduled land be increased and paid at the rate of Rs. 29,120/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand One Hundred Twenty Only) in respect of the Converted Residential land in Sy.No.25/2B1B1 measuring 202.35 Sq.mts & Rs.2,839/- (Rupees Two Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine Only) in respect of the Dry land in Sy. No.25/2B1B1 measruing 384.65 Sq.mts of Shirady Village for every cent of land with 9% interest applicable under section 3-H(5) of the Natio