CAV Order

07/10/2021

1. This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the order dated

27.07.2021, passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Bilaspur, Division- Bilaspur, C.G. in Arbitration Case No.363/A-82/2020-21.

2. The facts in brief are these, that the petitioner was the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.2718/2 and 2715 ad-measuring area 0.0250 and 0.0510 hectare situated in village Seoni, Tehsil- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, C.G. The land was acquisitioned for widening of the National Highway. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure-P/4) granting compensation. The petitioners and others preferred a W.P.(C.) No.804/2021 before this Court, which has been disposed off by this Court on 17.02.2021 and the petitioners were directed to raise the dispute before the Additional Commissioner under the provision of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1956”) individually. The dispute raised by the petitioner has been decided by the Arbitrator/Commissioner Bilaspur Division by the impugned order.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is unsustainable. The Division Bench of this Court has passed judgment dated 06.12.2019 in W.A. No.07/2019 and the batch of other similar petitions, in which it was held that the fixation of minimum value does not and cannot deny the land owner from getting actual market value, if the same dispute as of which above the minimum value and the question framed on this point was answered that the person affected by land acquisition has entitlement for compensation according to the actual market value.

4. The learned Arbitrator has discussed the judgment and W.A.

No.07/2019, however, it has been held that a Review Petition No.94 of 2020 is pending, therefore, the direction in W.A. No.07/2019 has not been followed. It is also submitted that the judgment in W.A. No.07/2019 holds ground, unless and until, it is set aside or modified in the review petition, therefore, this could not have been made a ground for dismissing the claim made by the petitioner in the impugned order. It is payed that the impugned order may be set aside and the case be remanded back to the arbitrator with direction to decide the dispute afresh.

5. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr. reported in (2020) 15 SCC 706, according to which, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is available in such a case.

6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.1155/2021 decided on 20.04.2021 on the same point.

7. It is further submitted that the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has also been withheld due to the pendency of the Review Petition No.94/2020. Hence, it is prayed that relief may be granted to the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and raises the objection on the maintainability of the present petition under Article 227 Constitution of India. It is submitted that Section 3 (G) (6) of the Act, 1956 specifically provides that determination of compensation made by the arbitrator under Section 3 (G) (5) of the Act, 1956 is subject to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by which the petitioner has remedy available to challenge the award.

Hence, this petition is not maintainable.

9. Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304, in which it is clearly held that award of the arbitrator granted under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956 is subject to challenge under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and subject to limitation as provided under