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

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.90 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.215/1B2, 215/1D, 215/4B, 215/5B1 and 215/1C, measuring 5867 sq.mtr. (273+550+4744+250+50) and in Survey Nos.215/1B2, 215/1D and 215/5B1, measuring 189 sq.mtr. (77+100+12), totalling an extent of 6056 sq.mtr. or 65186 sq.ft., situated in Chinnasalem 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 2nd respondent had considered the land as Manai land and, after collecting 262 sales statistics for the reasonable period from 25.06.2007 to 26.06.2008, selected a data land in S.F.No.222/4 as per Document No.2216/2008 dated 18.06.2008 and fixed the value of the petitioner's land at Rs.37/- per sq.mtr. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,17,079/- towards land value with 10% additional compensation and Rs.7,692/- towards coconut trees, totalling Rs.2,24,072/- was awarded as compensation in proceedings No.286/2009 dated 07.09.2009.

2.1. The appellant, under protest, received the said amount and filed an application before the 1st respondent/Arbitrator/District Collector on 11.02.2013 seeking enhanced compensation under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The 1st respondent conducted enquiry on 14.01.2016 and, after examining all documents and hearing both sides, passed an Arbitration Award in proceedings Na.Ka.(Arbit) A2/34364/2013 dated 04.07.2016, enhancing the compensation by 100% over the value fixed by the 2nd respondent, arriving at an enhanced value of Rs.74/- per sq.mtr. and paying an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,13,386/- to the petitioner, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of notification under Section 3D(1) till the date of payment.

2.2. Aggrieved by the Arbitration Award dated 04.07.2016, the appellant/land owner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in Arb.O.P.No.90/2017 before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram praying to set aside the said award and to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.49,90,808/- as enhanced compensation with 9% interest from the date of acquisition 26.06.2008, along with additional market value and solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 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, in its order dated 04.07.2016, had acknowledged that the acquired lands are adjacent to Chinnasalem Town and hence the tribunal ought to have appreciated that the properties acquired by the 3rd respondent are existing very near to the residential area, school, hotel, hospital, shopping complex, etc., and hence the same has to be valued as a plotable site and not as agricultural land. He further submitted that the 1st respondent, without properly considering the location and nature of the acquired land, merely enhanced the compensation for all the applicants to the extent of 100% by a blanket order, without applying his mind to the individual facts. He further submitted that the properties acquired by the 3rd respondent are house sites, and hence it is not correct to fix the v