Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land compensation; no re-appreciation of evidence.

This appeal is filed by the claimant/land owner against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.03.2021 in Arb. OP.No.13 of 2017 passed by the Principal District Judge at Villupuram.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The lands in survey No.11/1 B2 in Tindivanam town, Villupuram District measuring an extent of 270 Sq. mtr i.e. 2906 sq. ft belong to the appellant/ land owner were acquired by the National HighWays Authority of India. The land value was fixed by the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) namely the 2^nd respondent herein at Rs.192/- per sq. ft. and the same was awarded by the 2^nd respondent with a sum of Rs.6,14,196/- as compensation in Na.Ka/441/2007 NH66/TINDI dated 08.12.2009. Against the said order, an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was filed by the appellant/land owner and the same was dismissed on 07.12.2007. Aggrieved by this, the appellant/land owner filed an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred as “the Act’’) in Arb.OP.No.13 of 2017 before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram and the same was dismissed on 10.03.2021. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred.

3.The learned counsel for the appellant/land owner would submit that the

2^nd respondent/Competent Authority in the order dated 18.03.2006 has stated that the said lands are adjacent to National Highways NH-66 Tindivanam, Marakkanam and the market value of the said lands is between Rs.48000/- to 70,000/- per cent. However, the 2^nd respondent/competent authority had fixed the compensation at Rs.192/- per sq.ft. The 2^nd respondent/Competent Authority ought to have fixed the value at Rs.600/- per sq. ft. The learned counsel submits that the 1^st respondent/District Collector/Arbitrator and the 2^nd respondent/Competent Authority have failed to consider the potentiality of the land which is abetting NH-66 Tindivanam, Marakkanam. Wherein, in another award pertaining to the very same project for adjacent survey numbers, the land value has been enhanced to 30 per cent by the 1^st respondent/District Collector/Arbitrator, i.e., from Rs.192/- per sq. ft to 249.60 per sq.ft., considering the potential value of the land and further the lands are nearby to Tindivanam Town and various institutions. Whereas, in the present case, the 1^st respondent/Competent Authority failed to follow the said yardstick. Hence, the award passed by the 1^st respondent/Competent Authority is not in accordance with law. The 1^st respondent/District Collector/Arbitrator failed to consider the documents relied upon by the appellant/land owner for ascertaining the correct market value for the acquired lands. Since the Competent Authority and the District Collector have awarded lower value in a mechanical manner without adverting to the requirements of law, direction may be given to the arbitrator to follow the provisions of Section 3G (7) of the National Highways Act, in determining the compensation by considering the sale deeds produced by the appellant/land owner for fixing the correct market value for the acquired lands. The Learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram also failed to consider the contentions made by the appellant /land owner, erroneously dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, warrants interference by this Court.

To support his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in C.M.A(MD)No.1734 of 2013 in which this Court has directed the Arbitrator to take into account the sale deed produced by the land owner and the valuation reflected therein and decide the appropriate compensation.

4.On the other hand, the learned coun