IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 209 of 2003 K.P. DUBEY Versus JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appearance:

Shri Navneesh Jauhari - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Himanshu Mishra - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The present Civil Revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the award dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 05/1997, whereby the petitioner’s claim has been partly allowed.

2. Subsequently, while preparing the final bill, deductions were made by adopting a different mode of calculation. The petitioner raised objections, which were rejected, compelling him to file a reference before the Arbitration Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 30.09.2002, rejected most of the claims and allowed only a sum of Rs. 1,49,451.12 against the total claim of Rs.18,22,667/-, giving rise to the present Civil Revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality and perversity, as the Tribunal has misapplied the provisions of the C.S.R. and ignored the evidence available on record. The claim was disallowed solely on the ground that receipts were not produced before the respondent, despite the fact that such production was never demanded and the receipts were duly tendered before the Tribunal.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4 . Consideration and appreciation of the claims raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal and urged before this Court:

Claim A. Deduction of quantity for shrinkage from the earth used on forming road embankment of Rs.75,370/-, learned tribunal has recorded finding after appreciation of evidence in para No. 24.8 to 24.10 of the award which is reproduce here.

24.8 The interpretation made during arguments by petitioner's learned counsel is that it is only applicable when sectional measurements are required to be converted into pit measurements but the wordings of the note make it clear that it is not the sectional measurements but the pit measurements by which the grades of material to be measured and where pit measurements are not practicable, sectional measurements will be taken and necessary deductions to reduce it into pit measurements will be made.

24.9 So to say that the notes are applicable only when sectional measurements are converted into pit measurements is not correct. Actually the measurement to be applied is the pit measurements and when pit measurement is not practicable sectional measurements will be reduced to the pit measurements by making necessary deductions. With this interpretation their remains no force in argument that the petitioner deserves the payment on the sectional measurements.

24.10 It is not disputed that the payment of running bills is made to him on the basis of sectional measurements but the C.S.R. does not permits it. Hence the deductions of 7.5% made in the quantity cannot be said to the erroneous. The use of the note No. 1 & 2 of para 4.2 in Chapter 3 (A) in C.S.R. is neither irrelevant nor erroneous. So far the payment for the remaining quantity has been made, there is no dispute regarding calculation etc. Thus the claim deserves to be disallowed hence, it is disallowed.

5. It is argued that Item No. 1 of the schedule did not involve excavation but was confined to removal, transportation, spreading and consolidation. Excavation is a distinct item under the C.S.R. No spoil zone was provided by the respondent, compelling the petitioner to undertake excavation, for which payment was admissible at C.S.R. rates. The quantity being undisputed, the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the claim without appreciating the true nature of the dispute.

Claim No.B. Claim for removing ear