Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Addala Srinivasa Raju, Hyderabad vs The Competent Auty La W.G.Dist Anr on 18 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.599 of 2017
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the appellant, and
the learned Government Pleader for Appeals for the respondents,
apart from perusing the entire material available on record.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under Section 37 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, calls in question the
judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2016, passed by the Court of the
learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, confirming
the Arbitral Order passed by the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector,
West Godavari at Eluru vide proceedings in
R.Dis.No.G1/949/2014/NHAI, dated 05.09.2014.
3. The issue in the present appeal arises under the National
Highways Act, 1956. The National High Ways Authorities pressed into
service the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for the
purpose of acquiring the lands for widening/extending NH-16 from 4
Lanes to 6 Lanes. A notification and declaration under Sections 3-A
and 3-D of the National Highways Act came to be issued on
25.11.2011 and 22.11.2012 respectively. The Competent Authority
AVSS,J & JS,J
(Land Acquisition)-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, West
Godavari District, passed an Award, fixing compensation towards the
land of the appellant admeasuring 3070 Sq.Mts situated in
R.S.No.843/3B at Denduluru @ Rs.346/- per Sq.Mt. On the request
made by the appellant-claimant, the matter was referred to the
Arbitrator-cum-District Collector, West Godavari District under
Sections 3 (G) 5 of the National Highways Act. The Arbitrator-cum-
District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru, vide order bearing
R.Dis.No.G1/949/2014/NHAI, dated 05.09.2014, confirmed the
Award passed by the Competent Authority. Thereafter, the matter
landed before the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, West
Godavari at Eluru under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act vide A.O.P.No.765 of 2014. The learned Principal District Judge
vide order and decree, dated 30.11.2016, dismissed the said
A.O.P.No.765 of 2014. In the above background, the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal came to be preferred before this Court under
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
order, dated 30.11.2016, passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, West Godavari District in A.O.P.No.765 of 2014, and the
Arbitral order, dated 05.09.2014, passed by the Arbitrator-cum-
District Collector, West Godavari District, are highly erroneous,
contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the
AVSS,J & JS,J
provisions of the National Highways Act. In elaboration, it is further
contended that the quantum of amount fixed by the Competent
Authority, under the provisions of Section 3G of the National
Highways Act, is not in consonance with the prevailing market value
and the subject land is highly potential and is a land of commercial
value and is abutting the Highway. It is further submitted that the
Land Acquisition Officer granted higher amount of compensation
towards the neighbouring lands of the appellant. It is further argued
that the Competent Authority, having categorically observed in the
Award, about the location of the land as abutting the National
Highway, and having categorically recorded about the potentiality of
the land, grossly erred in awarding less amount towards
compensation. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that
the Competent Authority ought to have granted higher amount of
compensation to the appellant by taking into consideration the
potentiality of the land.
5. In support of his submissions and contentions, learned counsel
for the appellant places reliance on the following judgments:
1. 1996 (10) SCC 607.
2. (2014) SCC 406.
6. On the contrary, strongly resisting the appeal, it is submitted by
the learned Government Pleader that the quantum of compensation
AVSS,J & JS,J
awarded by the Competent Authority is highly reasonable and in
accordance with the prevailing market value. It is further submitted
that the appellant/claimant did not produce any evidence, either
before the Competent Authority or before the Arbitrator, in support of
his plea, as regards the quantum of compensation.
7. In the above background, now the issues that arise for
consideration of this Court in the present appeal are:
1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Competent Authority under the provisions
of Section 3G of the National Highways Act is
sustainable and tenable; and
2. Whether the appellant herein is entitled for
enhancement of the compensation awarded?
8. The information available before this Court manifestly discloses
that, on 25.11.2011 and 22.11.2012, notification under Section 3-A
and declaration under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act came
to be issued by the Competent Authority. Subsequently, the
Competent Authority passed an Award on 08.08.2013, determining
the amount of compensation as Rs.346/- per Sq.Mt.
9. A perusal of the Award passed by the Competent Authority
discloses, in clear and vivid terms, that as per the Basic Value
Register, maintained in the office of the Sub-Registrar, the value of
the land as on the date notification, issued under Section 3-A of the
AVSS,J & JS,J
Act, was Rs.12,00,000/- per acre. It is also required to be noted that
the values came to be revised with effect from 01.04.2013 and the
basic value as per the revised rates, which came into effect from
01.04.2013, was Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. By taking the average,
though the value as per the Basic Value Register was Rs.12,00,000/-
per acre, the Competent Authority enhanced the compensation to
Rs.14,00,000/- per acre and paid the same. The claimant-appellant
did not produce any evidence to show that he was utilizing the
subject land for any commercial purpose till the date of notification
under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act. The claimant-
appellant herein did not produce either oral evidence or documentary
evidence to substantiate his stand as regards the value of the subject
land. Except pleading that in respect of the neighbouring lands more
amount was paid, no evidence was adduced by the claimant-appellant
herein to substantiate the plea as regards the location of the property.
10. In the absence of any evidence on record, this Court is not in a
position to record a finding different from the view expressed by the
learned Principal District Judge and the Arbitrator. In view of these
reasons, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the claimant-
appellant would not render any assistance to the case of the appellant
herein.
AVSS,J & JS,J
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________
A.V.SESHA SAI,J
________________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
18th December, 2023.
Tsy
