Narrow scope of judicial interference under S.34/37 Arbitration Act; courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify land compensation awards under NH Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant/land owner against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.12.2020 passed in Arbitration O.P.No.101 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

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

The lands in Survey Nos.8/1B3B and 9/2B, situated in Ammaiyagaram Village, Chinnasalem Taluk, Villupuram District, belonging to the appellant/land owner, were acquired by the 2nd respondent for laying 4-way lane road under the National Highways Authorities Act for the Salem-Ulundurpet section of National Highway No.68. The acquisition notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was published in Government of India Gazette No.890 dated 26.06.2008 and 3A(3) notice was also published in Tamil and English dailies on 16.08.2008. The 3D(1) notification was published in Government Gazette No.778/2009 dated 18.05.2009 and the 3G(3) enquiry was notified and conducted accordingly. The 2nd respondent had considered the land as Manai land and, after collecting 139 sales statistics for the reasonable period from 25.06.2007 to 26.06.2008, selected a data land in S.F.No.39/1B measuring 1.05 acres as per Document No.2536/2007 dated 20.08.2007 and fixed the value at Rs.26/- per sq.mtr. for agricultural lands. For house site lands, the data land in S.F.No.122/12 was considered based on Document No.2099/2008 dated 13.06.2008, where 1533 sq.ft. was sold at Rs.38,325/- working out to Rs.25/- per sq.ft. (Rs.269/- per sq.mtr.). The 2nd Respondent accordingly passed award proceedings No.284/2009 dated 13.09.2009 and a total compensation was awarded to the land owners. Insofar as the appellant's land in S.F.No.8/1B3B measuring 3729 sq.mtr. (Main award), it was classified as Manai land and valued at Rs.26/- per sq.mtr. with 10% additional compensation, amounting to Rs.96,954/- and additionally Rs.1,06,649/- with 10% addition was awarded totalling Rs.1,06,649/- (Chq.No.355835 dt.13.10.09).

2.1. The appellant/land owner, dissatisfied with the said amount, filed an application before the 1st respondent/Arbitrator/District Collector on 21.01.2013 seeking enhanced compensation under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The 1st respondent conducted enquiry on 11.03.2016 and, after examining all documents and hearing both sides, passed an Arbitration Award in proceedings Na.Ka.(Arbit) A2/2935/2015 dated 29.07.2016. The 1st respondent, after considering that the petitioner's land is adjacent to Chinnasalem Town, enhanced the compensation by 100% over the rate fixed by the 2nd respondent at Rs.26/- per sq.mtr. and awarded enhanced compensation with 9% interest per annum from the date of notification under Section 3D(1) till the date of payment.

2.2. Aggrieved by the Arbitration Award dated 29.07.2016, the appellant/land owner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Arb.O.P.No.101 of 2017 before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, praying to set aside the said award and to direct the respondents to pay enhanced compensation at Rs.80/- per sq.ft. and further relief. The learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, dismissed the said application on 21.12.2020. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is preferred.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/land owner would submit that the 1st respondent/Arbitrator failed to appreciate that the properties acquired by the 3rd respondent are house sites existing very near to the residential area, school, hotel, hospital, shopping complex, etc., and hence the same ought to have been valued as plot