Allahabad High Court
Arvind Mishra vs National Highway Authority Of ... on 23 May, 2018
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? A.F.R.
Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2447 of 2018
Appellant :- Arvind Mishra
Respondent :- National Highway Authority Of India And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Maithali Sharan Pipersenia
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri M.S. Pipersenia learned counsel for the appellant.
It is alleged that the land of the appellant which he had purchased vide sale deed dated 15.6.2004 for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. In respect of the said acquisition, the Competent Authority/SLAO made an award on 22.11.2006. The appellant was not satisfied by the said award and the rate at which the compensation was awarded for the acquired land. He therefore, preferred arbitration as provided under Section 3-G (5) of the Act. The Arbitrator/ Collector after notice and opportunity to the parties made an award on 25.5.2010 holding that the compensation awarded by the competent authority is just and fair.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant filed application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for setting aside the aforesaid award on the ground that the rate of award is quite low and is not in accordance with the market value. The application has been rejected by the District Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 17.2.2018 holding that none of the grounds provided for setting aside and award exists.
The aforesaid judgment and order of the District Judge is under challenge in this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Section 34 of the Act provides for limited grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.
The learned counsel is unable to bring the case within any of the grounds provided for setting aside the award except for arguing that the award of the Arbitral Tribunal is in conflict with the public policy of India, inasmuch as the compensation has not been awarded according to the market value as is provided under Section 3-G (7) of the National Highways Act
Sub Section (7) of Section 3- G of the Act provides that the competent authority or the arbitrator in determining the amount of compensation must take into account interalia the market value of the land on the date of the publication of notification under Section 3-A of the Act.
The notification under Section 3-A of the Act was issued on 07.02.2005. The appellant had purchased the land in question vide sale deed dated 15.06.2004. There is hardly any difference of time between 15.06.2004 to 07.02.2005. There is no evidence on record that during this period the price of the land had increased or that there was an increasing trend in the price of the land. The appellant had purchased the land for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. He had been awarded Rs.2,63,340/- for the said land which is much higher than the sale consideration.
In view of the above, the Arbitral Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the award of the competent authority is just and fair and that there is no scope for any further enhancement.
The award is not even in-conflict with the public policy. The phrase public policy as used in Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705. The court held that the award shall be considered to be against the public policy of India if it is contrary to (i) fundamentals of the Indian law; (ii) interest of India; (iii) justice or morality or it is patently illegal.
The award is neither in-conflict with the interest of India or is against the principles of justice and morality.
The fundamentals of the Indian Law provides for the award of just and fair compensation and for the purposes of determination of just and fair compensation market value of the land as on the date of publication of the notification issued under Section 3-A of the Act is relevant.
The Arbitral Tribunal as discussed above has considered the market value of the land in upholding the offer of the competent authority to be just and fair.
In view of above, the award is neither patently illegal or against the fundamentals of the Indian Law so as to bring it in-conflict with the public policy of India.
The appeal as such is bereft of merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.5.2018
Akbar
