Heard Sri Radhakrishna vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 3438 AP

                                 1




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

             WRIT PETITION No.38881 of 2014

ORDER :

Heard Sri Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for

the writ petitioners, learned standing counsel appearing for

the NHAI and the learned Government Pleader appearing for

the 2nd respondent.

2) The facts are not in serious dispute.

3) The petitioners' lands were acquired by the National

High Way Authority on 19.07.2002. The petitioners were

dissatisfied with the compensation paid. Therefore, under

the statutory provisions they requested the District Collector

to enhance the compensation and to pass an order. The

District Collector as an Arbitrator passed orders on

29.09.2005. Since the petitioners were not given opportunity

of hearing before the said order was passed, they filed

W.P.No.22495 of 2006. This Writ Petition was allowed and

the order dated 29.09.2005 was set aside and the learned

single Judge directed the 1st respondent therein to consider

the matter afresh and remanded the issue back to him.

Thereafter, as can be seen from the record, further

proceedings dated 26.10.2014 were passed by the Arbitrator-

cum-District Collector, who is now arrayed as the 3rd

respondent herein. Questioning the said order the present

writ petition is filed.

4) Sri Radhakrishna, learned counsel representing the

writ petitioners submits that right up to the penultimate

paragraph No.7 of the Award there is only a discussion on

the claims and contentions. He points out that in the last

three lines of the penultimate paragraph of the proceedings

of the 2nd respondent, learned Arbitrator has said as follows:

"...The contention of petitioner & respondent and case file has been perused. There is no reason to enhance the compensation or to return the land to petitioner. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Market value fixed by the Competent Authority (LA) & Manager-1, national Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Vijayawada @ Rs.37.96 per Sq.Mt., which comes to Rs.1,53,786/- per acre) is genuine as I have no other reasons to consider the application filed by the claimants for enhancement of land compensation and accordingly the request of the claimant for enhancement of compensation is rejected."

5) Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that

other than the discussion of the respective contentions there

is no discussion on the enhancement and merits of the

matter. It is his contention that statutory obligation is cast

upon the 2nd respondent to give a reasoned order after

discussing the respective contentions. Relying upon the

judgment reported in Assistant Commissioner,

Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and

Leasing, Kota v. M/s. Shukla and Brothers1 learned

counsel submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as

follows in para 19-A:

"19A. Besides referring to the above well-established principles, it will also be useful to refer to some text on the subject. H.W.R. Wade in the book "Administrative Law, 7th Edition, stated that the flavour of said reasons is violative of a statutory duty to waive reasons which are normally mandatory. Supporting a view that reasons for decision are essential, it was stated:-

".....A right to reasons is, therefore, an indispensable part of a sound system of judicial review. Natural justice may provide the best rubric for it, since the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice... .....Reasoned decisions are not only vital for the purposes of showing the citizen that he is receiving justice: they are also a valuable discipline for the tribunal itself....."

2010 AIR SCW 3277

6) Relying upon the above, he submits that the writ

petitioner is entitled to know under what circumstances and

on what basis his claim was negatived. He also points out

that under Arbitration Act, 1996 also there is a duty cast

upon the Arbitrator to furnish reasons. He refers to Section

31 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and

points out that since the parties have not waived the

condition about the reasons, the Arbitrator was bound to

give reasons for the Award.

7) Therefore, he submits that it is a fit case in which the

matter should be remanded back to arbitrator, since earlier

order passed by this Court in W.P.No.22495 of 2006 was not

followed in letter and spirit and as there are no reasons for

the Award.

8) In reply, learned Government Pleader for Land

Acquisition argues in line with what is stated in her counter

affidavit. It is her contention that the Arbitrator has

considered the relevant material and came to right

conclusion. In the alternative she also submits that if the

writ petitioners are aggrieved or dissatisfied with the finding

they have to approach the concerned District Court under

Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the Award.

She relies upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of

this Court passed in W.P.No.26647 of 2006, in which case

also the Collector has passed an Award, and the learned

single Judge directed the writ petitioner to approach the

appropriate forum under Section 34 of the Arbitration.

Therefore, she submits that the writ petition is not a proper

remedy.

9) Learned counsel for the National Highway Authorities

submits argument in line with the learned Government

Pleader for Land Acquisition.

10) In rejoinder Sri Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that Section 34 application is not a

proper remedy in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

this case. According to him the Court can only set aside the

Award or approve the same. It does not have the power

under Section 34 to remand the matter for a fresh hearing.

Apart from that he also relies upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court, which is quoted earlier and argues that it is

not an effective alternative remedy. He also states that this

Court's Order in W.P.No.22495 of 2006 is not complied with.

11) This Court after considering the submissions has to

agree with what is stated by Sri Radhakrishna in his

rejoinder. Under Section 34 the powers of the Court are

limited. It can either accept the Award or set it aside,

remanding the matter back for fresh disposal for giving

reasons is not a power available to the District Court in

Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 particularly at this

stage of time. Therefore, this Court agrees with the

submissions of the learned counsel that the same is not an

effective alternative remedy in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case.

12) It is also clear that there are no reasons assigned as

pointed out till the two paragraphs mentioned above. There

is only discussion in the entire Award. The conclusions are

not supported by reasons. The judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, Sri Radhakrishna, learned counsel

relies upon is applicable to the facts and circumstances of

the case. This Courts earlier order in W.P.No.22495 of 2006

is also not followed.

13) In view of the above the Writ Petition is allowed with

the following directions: The order dated 26.10.2014 is set

aside. The 2nd respondent herein - District Collector &

Arbitrator is directed to conduct a de novo enquiry, issue

notice to both the parties, hear both the petitioners and the

respondent-State along with the NHAI; consider their

pleadings and evidence and pass an order, which has to be a

reasoned order. It is needless to say that the said reasoned

order should also be communicated to all the parties. The

entire exercise should be completed within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All

the parties are directed to cooperate with the 2nd respondent

in the early disposal of the matter. No costs.

14) As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:14.07.2023.

Ssv