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

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 29.09.2020 passed in Arbitration OP.No.88 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode.

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

The land in survey No. 64/1A2, measuring to a total extent of 150 sq. mtr. in Mettunasuvampalayam Village, Erode District, belong to the respondents, was acquired by the appellant for the purpose of widening of NH 47 and for formation of four lane roads in the Highways Road. The competent authority/District Revenue Officer, Erode District, had passed an Award in No.31/2007 dated 29.12.2007 by fixing the rate at Rs.68.64/- sq. mtr. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the Arbitrator/District Collector, Erode District, and an order had been passed by the Artibitrator in Ref. No.SR.132/E/Arbitration dated 22.02.2016 by enhancing the compensation at Rs.1,076.40 sq. mtr. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed an application under Section 34ofArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(herein after referred as “the Act’’) in Arb.OP.No.88/2016 before the Principal District Judge, Erode, and the same was dismissed on 29.09.2020.Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Arbitrator had passed the order without following mandatory provisions of law and rules and regulation of National Highways Act and that the enhancement of compensation is very high. The documents considered by the Arbitrator/ District Collector, Erode District are not legally applicable to the respondents survey number. The learned Judge failed to examine the contentions of the respective parties before the Court and without analyzing the contentions and giving reason for arriving at the finding had simply passed an order confirming the award of the Arbitrator, which is unsustainable in law. The learned judge failed to note that the competent authority (Land Acquisition)/District Revenue Officer, after considering the documents, which are similar to acquired lands arrived at just compensation of Rs.68.64 sq. mtr. Further, the land acquired was Ryotwari Dry, whereas, the exampler land, for fixing the value, is of Housing site of smaller extent. He would further submit that, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors, the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors are, the sales must be similar to the acquired land and the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaji Kuriakose vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.  (2001) 7 SCC 650. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, is bereft of reasons, legal backing and it is a non speaking order, warrants interference by this Court.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would submit that, the Arbitrator/District Collector, Erode District, had passed the order modifying the compensation only after considering all the material facts and documents placed before him, and the same was also rightly confirmed by the Principal District Judge, Erode. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the ap