Chattisgarh High Court
Union Of India vs Bhakadu Sonker on 7 April, 2022
1
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ARBA No. 43 of 2021
Judgment Reserved On : 22/02/2022
Judgment Delivered On : 07/04/2022
Bhagawat Sonker S/o Khorbahara Sonker Aged About 43 Years R/o
Ward No. 11, Village Post Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Highways Development And
Road Transport New Delhi, Through Project Director National
Highways Authority Of India (NHAI), Project Implementation Unit,
Shankar Nagar Raipur.
2. Competent Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Upper Collector Baloda Bazar / Arbitrator Baloda Bazar District Baloda
Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 9 of 2021
Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Sunder Lal, S/o Hincharam, Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No.4,
Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
3. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 11 of 2021
Ramji Devanagan S/o Late Chiman Lal Devangan, Aged About 64
Years R/o Ward No. 10, Village- Post - Simga, District - Baloda Bazar -
Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur,
District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. Additional Collector / Arbitrator Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District
Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways, Act, 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 12 of 2021
Shatruhan Sonker S/o Bhakadu Sonker, Aged About 55 Years Through
Its Power Of Attorney Holder- Jeevrakhan, Age About 56 Years, R/o
Sheetla Para Ward, Ward No.15, Mahamaya Ward, Village Post Simga,
District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Additional Collector/ Arbitrator, Balodabazar Bhatapara, District
3
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways, Act, 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 13 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar , Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Anuj S/o Dhunari Aged About 57 Years R/o Bhanthipara, Ward No. 14,
Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
2. Ashok S/o Dhunari Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhanthipara, Ward No.
14, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
3. Rajkumar S/o Dhunari Aged About 37 Years R/o Bhanthipara, Ward
No. 14, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
4. Kamla Bai W/o Gangaram Aged About 37 Years R/o Bhathgaon,
Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. Vimla Bai W/o Chatrapal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Tirurghat,
Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
6. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
7. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator , Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 15 of 2021
Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
4
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Now, National Highways Authority Of
India, Through The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, D-
61, HIG-I, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind Hi-Tech Bus Stand, Tifra,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Tulsiram Dewangan, S/o Pilwaram Dewangan, Aged About 72 Years
R/o Ward No.4, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar -
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 16 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Now, National Highways Authority Of
India, Through The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, D-
61, HIG-I, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind Hi-Tech Bus Stand, Tifra,
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Chiman Lal Devangan (Dead) Through His Legal Heir- Ramji
Devangan S/o Late Chiman Lal Devangan Aged About 64 Years R/o
Ward No. 10, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar-
Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh),
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
(Chhattisgarh)
5
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 17 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Now, National Highways Authority Of
India, Through The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, D-
61, HIG-I, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind Hi-Tech Bus Stand, Tifra,
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Bhagwat Sonker S/o Late Khorbahra Sonker Aged About 43 Years R/o
Ward No. 11, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar-
Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 18 of 2021
Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Now, National Highways Authority Of
India, Through The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, D-
61, HIG-I, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind Hi-Tech Bus Stand, Tifra,
Bilsapur Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Manaram Sonker, S/o Khorbahra Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No.
15, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
6
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
3. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 20 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Now, National Highways Authority Of
India, Through The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, D-
61, HIG- I, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind Hi-Tech, Bus Stand, Tifra,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. (a) Islam Bi, Age about 60 years, W/o late Shri Safi Mohammad
(b) Pyar Mohammad, age 35 years, S/o Late Shri Safi Mohammad
(c) Nasima, age 32 years, D/o Late Safi Mohammad
All Legal heirs of late Shri Safi Mohammad, Through Power of
Attorney Holder Shri Sharif Mohammad, age about 53 years, S/o late
Umerdaraj, R/o and No.14, Village Post Simga, Police Station Simga,
District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
2. Competent Officer/ Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District-
Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar/ Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 21 of 2021
Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
7
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Versus
1. Sitaram, S/o Tetku, Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Village
And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 22 of 2021
Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Banshi Sonker, S/o Bhakadu Sonker, Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward
No. 12, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 23 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Dhanush Kumar S/o Jeevan Lal Devangan Aged About 55 Years R/o
8
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Ward No. 12, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar/Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 24 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Tulsidas S/o Late Shyamlal Aged About 61 Years R/o Avrethi, Tahsil
Simga, District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 25 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Mehtarin Wd/o Domra Sonkar (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1 (a)
Hariprasad Sonkar, 1(b) Rameshwar Sonkar, 1(c) Ramkhilawan Sonkar,
1(d) Haldhar Sonkar, And 1(e) Hemlal Sonkar, 1(a) to 1(e) Are Sons Of
Domra Sonkar and Are Residents Of Village Simga, Tahsil Simga,
9
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
District Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh),
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
(Chhattisgarh),
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 26 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Janak Sonker S/o Baisakhu Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 12,
Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara
(Chhattisgarh)
2. Omprakash Sonker S/o Baisakhu Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No.
12, Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara
(Chhattisgarh)
3. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
4. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
(Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 27 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi. Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
10
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
1. Fekuram Sonker S/o Guhan Sonker Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward
No.4, Village And Post- Simga, District- Baloda- Bazaar- Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Munni Bai D/o Guhan Sonker Aged About 38 Years Through Power Of
Attorney Holder Respondent No. 1 -Fekuram Sonker, R/o Ward No.4,
Village And Post- Simga, District- Baloda- Bazaar- Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Basanti Bai D/o Guhan Sonker Aged About 36 Years Through Power
Of Attorney Holder Respondent No.1-Fekuram Sonker, R/o Ward No.4,
Village And Post- Simga, District- Baloda- Bazaar- Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Laxmi Bai D/o Guhan Sonker Aged About 34 Years Through Power Of
Attorney Holder Respondent No.1-Fekuram Sonker, R/o Ward No.4,
Village And Post- Simga, District- Baloda- Bazaar- Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
5. Budhiyarin Bai W/o Guhan Sonker Aged About 38 Years Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Respondent No.1-Fekuram Sonker, R/o
Ward No.4, Village And Post- Simga, District- Baloda- Bazaar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
6. Competent Officer/ Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District-
Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
7. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar/ Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 28 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Keja Bai Sonker D/o Buddhu Sonker Aged About 42 Years Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Banshi Sonker, S/o Bhaou Sonker, A/a 64
Years, R/o Mahamaya Ward-15, Village And Post- Simga, District-
Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
11
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
2. Competent Officer/ Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District-
Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar/ Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 29 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Shatruhan Sonker S/o Bhakadu Sonkar Aged About 57 Years Through
General Power Of Attorney Jivrakhan, S/o Bhakadu Sonkar, R/o
Shitlapara, Ward No. 15, Mahamaya Ward Simga, Tahsil Simga,
District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 30 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Rajkumar Mandal S/o Ajit Mandal (Bangali) Aged About 51 Years R/o
Village And Post Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
12
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 31 of 2021
Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt Anusuiya, D/o Ledga Sonker, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village
Simga, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara (C.G.)
Through General Power Of Attorney Rajaram, S/o Guhan Sonker, R/o
Village Simga, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 32 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhatisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Bhakadu Sonker S/o Telku Sonkar Aged About 64 Years Through
General Power Of Attorney Jivrakhan, S/o Bhakadu Sonkar, R/o Simga,
Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
13
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 33 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Now National Highways Authority Of
India Through The Project Director , Project Implementation Unit, D -
61, HIG I, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind Hi Tech Bus Stand , Tifra
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Holaram Panjwani S/o Late Jamiyatmal Panjwani Aged About 72 Years
Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Chetandas Panjwani , S/o Late
Jamiyatmal Panjwani, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Village
And Post Simga , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga , District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 34 of 2021
Union Of India Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Nandkishore S/o Late Gajpat Maratha Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village- Simga, District- Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Nisha Morkhe W/o Narayan Rao Morkhe R/o Nagpur,
Maharashta.
14
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
3. Smt. Shashi Pawar W/o Subhodh Pawar D/o Gajpat Rao Maratha, R/o
Balod, Chhattisgarh.
4. Smt. Manjula Gawde W/o Arun Rao D/o Gajpat Rao Maratha, R/o
Chandrapur, Maharashtra.
5. Kum. Sanjula Bhosle D/o Gajpat Rao Maratha R/o Simga, District-
Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
6. Kum. Ragini Bhosle D/o Gajpat Rao Maratha R/o Simga, Tahsil-
Simga, District- Baloda- Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
7. Smt. Anita Rani Through Nandkishore Bhosle.
Respondents No.2 to 7 through General Power of Attorney Nandkishore
Bhosle, son of Late Gajpat Rao Bhosle, R/o Simga, Tehsil Simga,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
8. Competent Officer/ Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District-
Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
9. Additional Collector Baloda Bazaar/ Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 35 of 2021
Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Shatrughan Sonker, S/o Bhakadu Sonker, Aged About 62 Years
Through General Power Of Attorney Jivrakhan, S/o Bhakadu Sonkar,
R/o Shitlapara, Ward No. 11, Mahamaya Ward, Simga, Tahsil Simga,
District Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
15
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 36 of 2021
Shatrughan Sonker S/o Bhakadu Sonkar Aged About 60 Years Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Jeevrakhan Sonkar Age About 55 Years, S/o
Bhakhadu Sonkar, R/o Ward No. 11, Village Post Simga, District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Highways Development And
Road Transport New Delhi, Through Project Director National
Highways Authority Of India (NHAI) Project Implementation Unit,
Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Competent Authority/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga District
Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
3. Upper Collector Baloda Bazar/ Arbitrator Baloda Bazar, District-
Baloda Bajar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 37 of 2021
1. Nandkishor Bhosale S/o Late Gajpat Maratha Aged About 48 Years R/o
Village Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
2. Shrimati Nisha Gorakhe W/o Narayan Rao Gorakhe Aged About 64
Years R/o Nagpur Maharashtra.
3. Shrimati Shashi Pawar W/o Subodh Pawar, D/o Gajpat Rao Maratha
Aged About 45 Years R/o Balod District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
4. Shrimati Manjula Gaawade W/o Arun Rao, D/o Gajpat Rao Maratha
Aged About 43 Years R/o Chandrapur Maharashtra.
5. Miss Sanjula Bhosale D/o Late Gajpat Maratha Aged About 41 Years
R/o Village Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
6. Miss Ragini Bhosale D/o Late Gajpat Maratha Aged About 34 Years R/
o Village Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
7. Shrimati Anita Rani D/o Late Gajpat Maratha Aged About 42 Years R/
o Village Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
16
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Appellants No.2 to 7 Through General Power Of Attorney Holder
Nandkishor Bhosale, S/o Late Gajpat Maratha, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Village Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Highways Development And
Road Transport New Delhi, Through Project Director National
Highways Authority Of India (NHAI), Project Implementation Unit,
Shankar Nagar Raipur,
2. Competent Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga District
Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Upper Collector Baloda Bazar / Arbitrator Baloda Bazar District Baloda
Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 39 of 2021
Union Of India, Through The Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi, Through The Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Salma Bano W/o Farukh Menan, Aged About 47 Years R/o
Simga, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Officer / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
Baloda Bazaar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Land Execution Officer SDO (Revenue)
District Baloda Bazaar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
4. Additional Collector, Baloda Bazaar / Arbitrator, Baloda Bazaar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 40 of 2021
17
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Keja Bai Sonker D/o Buddhu Sonker Aged About 42 Years Through
Power Of Attorney Holder Banshi Sonker, Aged About 62 Years, S/o
Bhaou Sonker, R/o Mahamaya Ward No. 15 Simga, District Baloda
Bazar Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Highways Development And
Road Transport New Delhi, Through Project Director National
Highways Authority Of India (NHAI), Project Implementation Unit,
Shankar Nagar Raipur.
2. Competent Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Upper Collector Baloda Bazar / Arbitrator Baloda Bazar District Baloda
Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 41 of 2021
Smt. Anusuiya Sonker D/o Ledga Sonker Aged About 47 Years
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Rajaram Sonker , Age 60 Years, S/
o Late Guhan Sonker , R/o Ward No. 02, Village Post Simga District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways ,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways , New Delhi, Through
Its Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Collector / Arbitrator Balodabazaar Bhatapara District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Office (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways Act , 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
18
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
ARBA No. 42 of 2021
Dhanush Kumar S/o Jeevan Lal Devangan Aged About 55 Years R/o
Ward No. 12, Simga, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Highways Development And
Road Transport New Delhi, Through Project Director National
Highways Authority Of India (NHAI), Project Implementation Unit,
Shankar Nagar Raipur.
2. Competent Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Upper Collector Baloda Bazar / Arbitrator Baloda Bazar District Baloda
Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 44 of 2021
Banshi Sonker S/o Late Bhaou Sonker Aged About 71 Years R/o Ward
No. 15, Mahamaya Ward, Village Post Simga, District Baloda Bazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Collector / Arbitrator, Balodabazar Bhatapara District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways, Act 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 45 of 2021
19
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
1. Janak Sonker S/o Late Baisakhu Sonker Aged About 47 Years R/o
Ward No. 12, Village - Post - Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara
(Chhattisgarh)
2. Omprakash Sonker S/o Late Baisakhu Sonker Aged About 45 Years R/
o Ward No. 12, Village - Post - Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh),
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highways Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur,
District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. Additional Collector / Arbitrator Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District
Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways Act 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 46 of 2021
Sunder Lal S/o Late Hincharam Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 4,
Village Post Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highways Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit Shanker Nagar, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Additional Collector/arbitrator Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara District Baloda
Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways, Act, 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
20
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 48 of 2021
Sitaram S/o Tetku Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No 12 Village Post
Simga, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Highways Development And
Road Transport New Delhi, Through Project Director National
Highways Authority Of India (N H A I), Project Implementation Unit,
Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga District
Baloda Bajar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Upper Collector Baloda Bazar / Arbitrator Baloda Bazar District Baloda
Bajar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 49 of 2021
1. Hariprashad Sonker S/o Late Domra Sonker Aged About 60 Years R/o
Ward No. 2, Village Post Simga , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
2. Rameshwer Sonker S/o Late Domra Sonker Aged About 58 Years
Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Appellant No.1-Hariprashad
Sonker, R/o Ward No. 2, Village Post Simga , District Baloda Bazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Ram Khilawan S/o Late Domra Sonker Aged About 50 Years Through
Its Power Of Attorney Holder Appellant No.1-Hariprashad Sonker, R/o
Ward No. 2, Village Post Simga , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
4. Haldhar Sonker S/o Late Domra Sonker Aged About 45 Years Through
Its Power Of Attorney Holder Appellant No.1-Hariprashad Sonker, R/o
Ward No. 2, Village Post Simga , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
5. Hemlal Sonker S/o Late Domra Sonker Aged About 47 Years Through
21
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Its Power Of Attorney Holder Appellant No.1-Hariprashad Sonker, R/o
Ward No. 2, Village Post Simga , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways ,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director , Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Collector / Arbitrator Balodabazar Bhatapara, District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways Act 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 50 of 2021
1. Anuj S/o Late Dhunari Aged About 60 Years R/o Bhantipara, Ward No.
14, Village And Post- Simga, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Ashok S/o Late Dhunari Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhantipara, Ward
No. 14, Village And Post- Simga, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh. Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Appellant No.1-
Anuj.
3. Rajkumar S/o Late Dhunari Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhantipara,
Ward No. 14, Village And Post- Simga, District- Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder
Appellant No.1-Anuj.
4. Kamla Bai W/o Gangaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Bhathgaon,
Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Power Of Attorney
Holder Appellant No.1-Anuj.
5. Vimla Bai W/o Chatrapal Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Titurghat,
Tahsil- Dhamdha, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Power Of
Attorney Holder Appellant No.1-Anuj.
22
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways ,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Collector/ Arbitrator Balodabazar- Bhatapara, District-
Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways Act 1956, And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 51 of 2021
Tulsiram Dewangan S/o Pilwaram Dewangan Aged About 72 Years R/o
Ward No. 4, Village Post Simga , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways ,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director , Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Collector / Arbitrator Balodabazar Bhatapara , District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways Act 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 52 of 2021
Rajkumar Mandal S/o Ajit Mandal (Bangali) Aged About 52 Years R/o
Village Post Simga, P. S. Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara
23
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highways Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit Shanker Nagar, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Additional Collector/arbitrator Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara District Baloda
Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways, Act, 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 53 of 2021
Holaram Panjwani, (Wrongly Mentioned In The Order), S/o Late
Jamiyatmal Panjwani, Aged About 74 Years Through Its Power Of
Attorney Holder Chetan Das Panjwani, Age About 73 Years, R/o Ward
No. 4, Village - Post - Simga, Police Station - Simga, District - Baloda
Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur,
District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Additional Collector / Arbitrator, Balodabazar - Bhatapara, District
Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) And Competent Authority Under The
National Highways, Act, 1956 And Land Acquisition Officer, Simga,
District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
24
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
ARBA No. 54 of 2021
Bhakadu Sonker Since Deceased Through His Legal Heir Jeevrakhan
Sonekar Through Power Of Attorney Holder Jeevrakhan Sonker Aged
About 55 Year S/o Bhakhadu Sonker R/o Ward No. 11 Village Post
Simga District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Highways Development And
Road Transport New Delhi, Through Project Director National
Highways Authority Of India (NHAI) Project Implementation Unit
Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Competent Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga District
Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
3. Upper Collector Baloda Bazar/arbitrator Baloda Bazar District Baloda
Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 57 of 2021
Manaram Sonker, aged about 50 years, S/o Khorbahara, R/o Ward
No.15, Village & Post Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Highways Development And
Road Transport New Delhi, Through Project Director, National
Highways Authority Of India (NHAI), Project Implementation Unit,
Shankar Nagar Raipur.
2. Competent Authority / Special Land Acquisition Officer Simga, District
Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Upper Collector Baloda Bazar / Arbitrator Baloda Bazar District Baloda
Bajar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 58 of 2021
25
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Mohd. Farukh Memon, S/o Late Shri Haji Habib, Aged About 66 Years
R/o Ward No. 13, Village - Post - Simga, District - Baloda Bazar -
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through Its
Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur,
District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Competent Authority / Land Acquisition Officer Under The National
Highways Act, 1956 Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Sub Divisional Officer (Rev), Land
Acquisition Officer, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh.
4. Additional Collector / Arbitrator, Balodabazar - Bhatapara, District
Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 59 of 2021
Salma Bano W/o Shri Mohd. Farukh Memon at present Aged About 51
Years R/o Ward No. 13, Village- Post - Simga, District - Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Government Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
Department Of Road Transport And Highways, New Delhi, Through
Its Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Through
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Shanker Nagar, Raipur,
District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. Competent Authority / Land Acquisition Officer Under The National
Highways Act, 1956 Bhatapara District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara
(Chhattisgarh)
26
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer (Rev), Land
Acquisition Officer, Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara
(Chhattisgarh)
4. Additional Collector / Arbitrator Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District
Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) s
---- Respondent
ARBA No. 38 of 2021
Union Of India Through Ministry Of Road Transport and Highways
New Delhi, Through Project Director, National Highways Authority Of
India, Project Implementation Unit, Shankar Nagar Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, now National Highway Authority of India, through the
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, D-61, HIG-1, Abhilasha
Parisar, behind Hi-Tech Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur (CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Farukh Memon, son of Hazi Habib, aged about 62 years, R/o Village &
Post Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG)
2. Competent Officer/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (CG)
3. State of Chhattisgarh, through Land Execution Officer, SDO (Revenue),
Bhatapara (CG)
4. Additional Collector, Balodabazar/Arbitrator, Balodabazar (CG)
---- Respondent
For Appellant/NHAI : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Standing Counsel with
Shri Shahil Singh, Advocate.
For Claimants/Private Individuals : Shri Sudeep Shrivastava and Shri Yogesh
Pandey, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Shri Samir Uraon, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
27
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
C A V JUDGMENT
1. The aforesaid Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment,
as common question of law is involved for adjudication.
2. The admitted facts of the case are as under:-
it is admitted fact that the NHAI had issued a notification under Section
3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (henceforth 'the Act, 1956')
with an intention to acquire the land on Bilaspur-Raipur National
Highway No.200/30 of Balodabazar-Bhatapara Section for its four-
laning/six-laning on 31st May, 2011.
the claimants are the land owners/land losers whose lands were sought
to be acquired for the said project.
after completing the formalities declaration of acquisition has been
made on 11.11.2011 under Section 3 (D) of the Act, 1956.
under the provisions of Section 3-G of the Act, 1956, the Competent
Authority/Land Acquisition Officer i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Bhatapara initially passed an award on 11 th October, 2012
and calculated the compensation at the rate of Rs.23,76,000/- per
hectares according to the guidelines for the market value of agricultural
land for the year 2011-12.
the claimants were not satisfied with the amount so determined for
compensation, therefore, the Additional Collector, Balodabazar-
Bhatapara was appointed as an Arbitrator under Section 3-G (5) of the
Act, 1956. The Arbitrator i.e. the Additional Collector refused to
enhance the award amount and confirmed the order passed by the
Competent Authority vide its order dated 28th October, 2015.
the claimants had challenged the arbitral award dated 28th October, 2015
before the District Judge, Balodabazar under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'the Act, 1996'). By
order dated 17th May, 2018, the District Judge partly allowed the
28
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
petitions/applications and remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for
fresh adjudication. The District Judge has observed in para-41 of the
said order that in the guidelines for the year 2011-12, there was
ambiguity in the rates of the lands which are situated to the extent of 20
meter depth from the road and the calculation was made as the land was
more than 2020 square meter. Therefore, differentiate rate of per
hectare was applicable and not at the rate of per square meter. In such
cases though the land is adjoining to the road, therefore, on this score,
the District Judge has observed that the rule is not clear and ambiguous
and hence the case was remitted back.
after the remand, the Additional Collector, Balodabazar/Arbitrator
instead of passing a fresh award, either enhancing or refusing to
enhance the amount of compensation, referred the matter to the Land
Acquisition Officer for re-calculating the award amount vide order
dated 17th January, 2019. However, in the said order, it was observed
that Rs.11,520/- per square meter, the market rate of the land, would be
applicable.
the Land Acquisition Officer/Competent Authority/SDO (Revenue),
Simga, District Balodabazar has again recomputed the award amount
and passed the order dated 3rd May, 2019 and re-affirmed the
calculation and total compensation amount which was awarded earlier
by order dated 11th October, 2012.
the claimants being aggrieved with the order passed by the SDO
(Revenue)/Competent Authority on 3rd May, 2019 refusing to
amend/modify the original award, challenged the same by way of filing
writ petitions bearing number WPC No.1850/2019 and other connected
matters. Vide orders dated 17th June, 2019 & 27th June, 2019, liberty
was given to the petitioners therein that they may move before the
District Judge under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to assail the order
passed by the Competent Authority and also the order passed by the
Arbitrator i.e. Additional Collector on 17th January, 2019. It was also
29
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
directed that the cases shall be dealt with on its own merits without
raising plea of limitation provided the petitioners move before the
District Judge within a period of 30 days from the order.
The District Judge, Balodabazar finally passed the impugned award on
12.2.2021.
3. Arbitration Appeals Nos.13/2021, 23/2021, 33/2021, 26/2021, 31/2021,
30/2021, 32/2021, 28/2021, 27/2021, 34/2021, 21/2021, 24/2021,
35/2021, 22/2021, 29/2021, 25/2021, 16/2021, 15/2021, 17/2021,
18/2021, 39/2021, 9/2021, 38/2021 & 20/2021 have been preferred by
the Union of India, through the Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways against the impugned order dated 12.2.2021 passed by the
District Judge, Baloda Bazar in a batch of civil suits whereby the
learned District Judge, while partly allowing the claims/applications
preferred by the private individuals/land losers under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 set aside the orders dated
17.1.2019 and 3.5.2019 passed by the Arbitrator/Competent Authority.
The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the private
respondents have deliberately suppressed the fact that against the
judgment passed in WA No.7/2019 (Ashutosh Agrawal & another Vs.
Union of India & Others), review petition is pending till date. The
private respondents/claimants have not affixed the proper Court fee as
per the Act, 1996 and the said ground was raised before the learned
District Judge, however, the learned District Judge, without considering
the same, passed the impugned order. While passing the impugned
30
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
order, learned District Judge enhanced the solatium by referring the
judgment in the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal, referred to above. It is
submitted that neither the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 nor the
judgment in the matter of Ashutosh Agrawal, referred to above, is
applicable retrospectively. The order dated 17.5.2018 passed by the
District Judge, Baloda Bazar was without jurisdiction and is not binding
on the appellant. Since the order dated 17.5.2018 of the learned District
Judge was without jurisdiction, any subsequent order flowing therefrom
becomes ipso facto without jurisdiction and for this reason, the order
dated 17.1.2019 passed by the Arbitrator is also not binding on the
appellant. Hence the order passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer/Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Officer, Bhatapara
(henceforth 'the CALA') on 11.10.2012 in Land Acquisition Case
No.01(01)/A-82/2011-12/Simga stood confirmed. The private
respondents are not entitled to get 100% solatium provided under the
new Land Acquisition Act of 2013, as the said Act is not applicable in
the present case. Therefore, it was prayed to quash the impugned order
dated 12.2.2021 passed by the learned District Judge in a batch of civil
suits.
4. Arbitration Appeals Nos.43/2021, 40/2021, 36/2021, 37/2021, 48/2021,
42/2021, 57/2021, 54/2021 have been preferred on behalf of the private
respondents/land losers by Shri Sudeep Shrivastava, Advocate seeking
31
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
to set aside the compensation calculated with regard to the appellants in
the said cases to the extent of market value which was taken as
Rs.7031/- sq. meter and directing the competent authority to recalculate
the same on the basis of Rs.11520/- sq. meter and also to enhance the
rate of interest from 9% to 15%.
5. Arbitration Appeal Nos.11/2021, 52/2021, 50/2021, 12/2021, 41/2021,
44/2021, 49/2021, 51/2021, 53/2021, 58/2021, 59/2021, 45/2021,
46/2021 have been preferred on behalf of the private individuals/land
losers by Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate seeking to partly set aside the
impugned order dated 12.2.2021 passed in a batch of civil suit and
directing the respondents to calculate the amount of compensation
strictly in accordance with the order dated 17.1.2019 passed by the
Arbitrator by taking the market value at Rs.11,520/- per sq. meter. The
learned District Judge by way of order dated 17.5.2018 directed the
Arbitrator to re-calculate the market value. In compliance of the order
passed by the District Judge, the Arbitrator by way of order dated
17.1.2019 fixed the market value of the land in question but in an
arbitrary manner remanded the matter back to the SDO for calculation
of compensation whereas the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to remand
the matter back to the SDO. The order passed by the Arbitrator was
challenged by the private individuals only and the National Highway
Authority had never challenged the same. The learned District Judge
has acted like an appellate Court while deciding the application under
32
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Section 34 of the Act, 1996. While deciding the case, the learned
District Judge has decided the issues which were otherwise decided by
his predecessors by way of order dated 17.5.2018. The learned District
Judge while calculating the compensation has relied on the guidelines
issued by the State Government, whereas his predecessor has already
rejected the guidelines issued by the State Government and thus by
doing this the learned District Judge has reviewed its own order. Since
the Arbitrator has calculated the market value as per the several
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order passed by the
Arbitrator regarding fixation of market value of land was not challenged
before any Court of law, the learned District Judge committed grave
error in taking the market value at Rs.2,834/- whereas the arbitrator has
fixed the market value at Rs.11,520/- sq. meter. The learned District
Judge has calculated the compensation as per the guidelines, whereas as
per the order dated 17.5.2018, the learned District Judge has quashed
the guidelines issued by the Collector for calculation of market value
and hence the learned District Judge has reviewed its earlier order
which is impermissible under the law.
6. Facts
of the cases are that lands of the private individuals/land losers
were sought to be acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 for
widening of National Highway No.200/30 of Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara
Section by the National Highway Authority of India. The subject land
is situated at Village Simga, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
Bhatapara. The award for the said acquisition was passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer/Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Officer,
Bhatapara (henceforth 'the CALA') on 11.10.2012 in Land Acquisition
Case No.6(2)/A/82 for the year 2011-12. The award dated 11.10.2012
passed by the CALA was challenged by the respondents/private
individuals/ land losers by way of an application under Section 3G(5) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996')
before the Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator passed an order on
28.10.2015 rejecting the claim of the respondents/private individuals.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Arbitrator, the respondents/
private individuals preferred an application before the District Judge,
Balodabazar under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The learned District
Judge passed an order on 17.5.2018 remanding the matter back to the
Arbitrator. On 17.1.2019, the Arbitrator after due consideration sent the
matter to the CALA whereupon the Land Acquisition Authority i.e.
CALA has not modified the award in any terms and maintained its
previous order. The said order has been challenged before this Court by
way of Writ Petitions in which it has been ordered that the matter
relates to arbitration and the same has to be challenged before the
District Judge. In these circumstances, the matter was sent to the
District Judge. It is alleged that the learned District Judge instead of
setting aside the award or refusing to set aside the award has arbitrarily
modified the same which is ultra vires the provisions of Section 34 of
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
the Act, 1996 and passed the impugned order which has been
challenged before this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the NHAI would submit that the
modified award dated 12.2.2021 passed by the District Judge is
arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1996 in
the teeth of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Project Director, National Highways No.45 E and 220
National Highways Authority of India Vs. M. Hakeem and Another
{(2021) 9 SCC 1 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 473}. Learned counsel
further relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Bhaven Construction Through Authorised Signatory Premjibhai
K. Shah Vs. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam
Ltd. And Another {2021 SCC OnLine SC 8}. Reliance was also
placed in the matter of Haryana Tourism Limited Vs. M/s Kandhari
Beverages Limited (Civil Appeal No.266/2022) wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide judgment dated 11.1.2022 reiterated that in appeal
under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the High Court has entered into
the merits of the case, which is not permissible in exercise of powers
under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Hence learned counsel prays to
allow the Appeals and set aside the award passed by the District Judge.
8. Shri Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the private
individuals/land losers submitted that the District Judge committed
grave error in calculating the market value of the land and calculated
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
compensation in the impugned order as per the guidelines whereas, as
per the earlier order dated 17th May, 2018 passed by the predecessor
District Judge, the guidelines have been quashed and that order has
attained finality, as the same was not challenged before any Court. The
District Judge has acted like an appellate Court while deciding the
application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, which is not permissible
under the Act. He further submitted that the Arbitrator has no
jurisdiction to remand the matter back to the SDO/CALA. He also
submitted that the order passed by the Arbitrator was challenged by the
claimants/appellants only and the National Highway Authority of India
had never challenged the order passed by the Arbitrator, therefore, the
market value of the land in question calculated by the Arbitrator has
become final. Hence, learned counsel prays to set aside part of the
impugned order dated 12.2.2021 and to direct the respondents to
calculate the compensation strictly as per the order of the Arbitrator
dated 17.1.2019 by taking market value at Rs.11,520/- per square meter.
9. Shri Sudeep Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for another set of
claimants/appellants has put forth his submissions that the impugned
order has not modified the arbitral award, as the award passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer is not an arbitral award as per the definition of
the arbitral award given in the Act, 1996. He further submitted that the
District Judge on 17th May, 2018 set aside the arbitral award passed by
the Arbitrator in the year 2015 and remanded the matter back and the
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
NHAI did not choose to challenge the said order. Thus, it had attained
finality. Now, they cannot raise objection that the aforesaid order was
bad in law, as they have participated in all the proceedings. He also
submitted that the Arbitrator was appointed by the Central Government
and not by the choice of the appellants. Therefore, there was no
prejudice caused to the NHAI. On 17.1.2019 the Arbitrator had passed
a fresh arbitral award and upheld the principles for calcuation on the
basis of square meter rates which were sought by the land losers.
However, the Arbitrator instead of calculating compensation on the
principle he has relied in his order, sent the matter back to the land
acquisition officer for calculating fresh compensation. The Land
Acquisition Officer did not comply with the directions contained in the
arbitral award and passed contrary order on 3.5.2019. In the impugned
order passed by the District Judge, same principle was upheld which
was applied by the Arbitrator in its 2019 award and justified calculation
of compensation on the basis of square meter rate. Therefore, the
District Judge has merely calculated the sums and have not deviated
from the principles pronounced by the Arbitrator in its January, 2019
arbitral award. The said act would not amount to modification in the
real sense. He also submitted that the High Court has directed the
claimants/appellants to appear before the District Judge by way of filing
an Appeal under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. Therefore, the District
Judge is bound to perform the said duty under the principle of judicial
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
discipline. He further submitted that the District Judge has exercised
the powers on the direction of coordinate Bench of the High Court,
therefore, another coordinate Bench could not negate the effect of said
order. Therefore, the matter should not have been remanded back to the
arbitration stage, considering 9 long years for determination of
compensation. Alternatively, he submitted that if the matter is remitted
back to the Arbitrator, it could only be sent for calculation of
compensation amount and not for deciding the claims afresh. Reliance
is placed in the matters of Narayan Prasad Lohia Vs. Nikunj Kumar
Lohia & Others {(2002) 3 SCC 572}, A.P. Housing Board Vs.
Mohd. Sadatullah & Others {(2007) 6 SCC 566}, M. Nagabhushana
Vs. State of Karnataka & Others {(2011) 3 SCC 408} & Sri
Chittaranjan Maity Vs. Union of India {(2017) 9 SCC 611}.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
11. In the matter of M. Hakeem (Supra), the question of law arose as to
whether the power of a court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ["Arbitration Act"] to "set aside" an award of an
arbitrator would include the power to modify such an award. In the said
case challenge was made against the order of Division Bench of the
Madras High Court that has disposed of a large number of appeals filed
under Section 37 of the said Act laying down as a matter of law that, at
least insofar as arbitral awards made under the National Highways Act,
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
1956 ["National Highways Act"], Section 34 of the Arbitration Act
must be so read as to permit modification of an arbitral award made
under the National Highways Act so as to enhance compensation
awarded by a learned Arbitrator. The relevant paras of the said decision
to understand the said issue settled by the Apex Court are as under :
15. Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 occurs in
Chapter VII under the title "Recourse against arbitral
award". We are directly concerned with sub-sections
(1) and (4) of Section 34 which are set out hereunder.
34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. --(1)
Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be
made only by an application for setting aside such
award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-
section (3).
xxx xxx xxx
(4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1),
the Court may, where it is appropriate and it is so
requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a
period of time determined by it in order to give the
arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral
proceedings or to take such other action as in the
opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds
for setting aside the arbitral award.
16. What is important to note is that, far from Section
34 being in the nature of an appellate provision, it
provides only for setting aside awards on very limited
grounds, such grounds being contained in sub-sections
(2) and (3) of Section 34. Secondly, as the marginal
note of Section 34 indicates, "recourse" to a court
against an arbitral award may be made only by an
application for setting aside such award in accordance
with sub-sections (2) and (3). "Recourse" is defined by
P Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd
Edition) as the enforcement or method of enforcing a
right. Where the right is itself truncated, enforcement
of such truncated right can also be only limited in
nature. What is clear from a reading of the said
provisions is that, given the limited grounds of
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
challenge under sub-sections (2) and (3), an application
can only be made to set aside an award. This becomes
even clearer when we see subsection (4) under which,
on receipt of an application under subsection (1) of
Section 34, the court may adjourn the Section 34
proceedings and give the arbitral tribunal an
opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or take
such action as will eliminate the grounds for setting
aside the arbitral award. Here again, it is important to
note that it is the opinion of the arbitral tribunal which
counts in order to eliminate the grounds for setting
aside the award, which may be indicated by the court
hearing the Section 34 application.
17. It is important to remember that Section 34 is
modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration, 1985, under
which no power to modify an award is given to a court
hearing a challenge to an award. The relevant portion
of the Model Law reads as follows:
"34. Application for setting aside as exclusive
recourse against arbitral award - (1) Recourse to a
court against an arbitral award may be made only by
an application for setting aside in accordance with
paragraphs (2) and (2) of this article.
xxx xxx xxx
(4) The court, when asked to set aside an award, may,
where appropriate and so requested by a party,
suspend the setting aside proceedings for a period of
time determined by it in order to give the arbitral
tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral
proceedings or to take such other action as in the
arbitral tribunal's opinion will eliminate the grounds
for setting aside.
41. As has been pointed out by us hereinabove,
McDermott (supra) has been followed by this Court in
Kinnari Mullick (supra). Also, in Dakshin Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt.
Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 157, a recent judgment of
this Court also followed McDermott (supra) stating
that there is no power to modify an arbitral award
under Section 34 as follows : (Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam Case : SCC p.676, para 44)
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
"44. In law, where the Court sets aside the award
passed by the majority members of the tribunal, the
underlying disputes would require to be decided afresh
in an appropriate proceeding. Under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, the Court may either dismiss the
objections filed, and uphold the award, or set aside the
award if the grounds contained in sub-sections (2) and
(2A) are made out. There is no power to modify an
arbitral award.
42. It can therefore be said that this question has now
been settled finally by at least 3 decisions of this Court.
Even otherwise, to state that the judicial trend appears
to favour an interpretation that would read into Section
34 a power to modify, revise or vary the award would
be to ignore the previous law contained in the 1940
Act; as also to ignore the fact that the 1996 Act was
enacted based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 which, as
has been pointed out in Redfern and Hunter on
International Arbitration, makes it clear that, given the
limited judicial interference on extremely limited
grounds not dealing with the merits of an award, the
'limited remedy' under Section 34 is co-terminus with
the 'limited right', namely, either to set aside an award
or remand the matter under the circumstances
mentioned in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996."
12. In the matter of Bhaven Construction (Supra), the following has been
held in para-11 :-
"We need to note that the Arbitration Act is a code in
itself. This phrase is not merely perfunctory, but has
definite legal consequences. Once such consequence is
spelled out under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act,
which reads as under " Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other other for the time being in force,
in matters governed by this part, no judicial authority
shall intervene except where so provided in this
part......"
13. This Court is not convinced with the submissions made by learned
Advocate Shri Sudeep Shrivastava that on account of recalculation of
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
compensation by the District Judge, another set of claimants became
equally aggrieved and submitted before this Court that the District
Judge by modifying the earlier order of his predecessor has acted like an
appellate Court, which is not permissible under Section 34 of the Act,
1996. Therefore, the order passed by the District Judge amounts to
modification of the award, which is not permissible under the law. In
the writ jurisdiction, the order was passed that the matter may be
preferred before the District Judge and he will decide the lis on its own
merit, in accordance with law. So the District Judge is bound to pass
order within the periphery of Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and he has no
jurisdiction to pass any such order dehors the law. Therefore,
considering the facts and orders, there is no conflict which requires the
matter to be settled by the larger Bench. So this Court is not in
agreement with such submission and the same is also not acceptable.
Hence the case laws referred by learned counsel are of no help to take a
different view of the matter.
14. In the present matter the District Judge while exercising the powers
under Section 34 of the Act,1996, passed the order dated 17.05.2018
and set aside the award passed by the arbitrator and also suo motu
remitted back the case to the arbitrator to pass fresh award in the light
of established principles of law and the guidelines of the Supreme
Court.
15. In this regard Section 34(4) of the Act 1996, is relevant, the same reads
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
thus:
"34. (4) On receipt of an application under sub-section
(1), the court may, where it is appropriate and it is so
requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a
period of time determined by it in order to give the
Arbitral Tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral
proceedings or to take such other action as in the
opinion of Arbitral Tribunal will eliminate the grounds
for setting aside the arbitral award."
16. The scope of power to be exercised in the aforesaid Section is explained
by the Supreme Court in the case of Kinnari Mullick v. Ghanshyam
Das Damani reported in (2018) 11 SCC 328, in paras 15 and 16 which
read as under :
15. On a bare reading of this provision, it is amply clear
that the Court can defer the hearing of the application
filed under Section 34 for setting aside the award on a
written request made by a party to the arbitration
proceedings to facilitate the Arbitral Tribunal by
resuming the arbitral proceedings or to take such other
action as in the opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal will
eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral
award. The quintessence for exercising power under this
provision is that the arbitral award has not been set
aside. Further, the challenge to the said award has been
set up under Section 34 about the deficiencies in the
arbitral award which may be curable by allowing the
Arbitral Tribunal to take such measures which can
eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral
award. No power has been invested by Parliament in the
Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal
except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited
purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 34.
This legal position has been expounded in McDermott
International Inc. [McDermott International
Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 181] In
para 8 of the said decision, the Court observed thus:
(Bhaskar Industrial case [Bhaskar Industrial
Development Ltd. v. South Western Railway, 2016 SCC
OnLine Kar 8330] , SCC OnLine Kar)
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
"8. ... Parliament has not conferred any power of
remand to the Court to remit the matter to the Arbitral
Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings as provided
under sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Act. The
object of sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Act is to
give an opportunity to the Arbitral Tribunal to resume
the arbitral proceedings or to enable it to take such
other action which will eliminate the grounds for
setting aside the arbitral award."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In any case, the limited discretion available to the
Court under Section 34(4) can be exercised only upon a
written application made in that behalf by a party to the
arbitration proceedings. It is crystal clear that the Court
cannot exercise this limited power of deferring the
proceedings before it suo motu. Moreover, before
formally setting aside the award, if the party to the
arbitration proceedings fails to request the Court to defer
the proceedings pending before it, then it is not open to
the party to move an application under Section 34(4) of
the Act. For, consequent to disposal of the main
proceedings under Section 34 of the Act by the Court, it
would become functus officio. In other words, the limited
remedy available under Section 34(4) is required to be
invoked by the party to the arbitral proceedings before the
award is set aside by the Court."
17. In I-Pay Clearing Services (P) Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd., (2022) 3 SCC
121, it was observed that remission of matter to arbitrator under Section
34(4) i.e. for elimination of grounds for setting aside the award cannot
be permitted in absence of findings on the contentious issues, and it was
held that if any findings are recorded ignoring the material evidence on
record, the same are acceptable grounds for setting aside the award
itself. The relevant para 41 of the said judgment is as under :
41. Under the guise of additional reasons and filling up
the gaps in the reasoning, no award can be remitted to
the arbitrator, where there are no findings on the
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
contentious issues in the award. If there are no findings
on the contentious issues in the award or if any
findings are recorded ignoring the material evidence
on record, the same are acceptable grounds for
setting aside the award itself. Under the guise of either
additional reasons or filling up the gaps in the
reasoning, the power conferred on the Court cannot be
relegated to the arbitrator. In absence of any finding on
contentious issue, no amount of reasons can cure the
defect in the award."
18. It is not disputed that the said remand order 17.05.2018 was not
challenged earlier, and only after the said remand when arbitrator has
also remitted the case to CALA, and the CALA, has not enhanced the
compensation, and the claimants preferred the writs, the same was also
dismissed and on the basis of observation in the said dismissal order,
the claimants again filed application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996,
in which the objection was taken that the remand was bad in law.
However under Section 34(4)of the Act,1996 the Court has only
empowered by the legislature to adjourn the proceedings for a period of
time determined by it in order to give the Arbitral Tribunal an
opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other
action as in the opinion of Arbitral Tribunal will eliminate the grounds
for setting aside the arbitral award. So, considering the scope and
authority vested to the court only to the adjourn the matter, so this court
is of the view that if any order passed exercising such jurisdiction can
not attain finality about the main issues, as the same is required to be
kept pending so the arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for
setting aside the arbitral award.
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
19. In Ashok Kumar Maheshwari (Dr) v. State of U.P., (1998) 2 SCC
502 : it was observed in para-20 that the basic principle is that the plea
of estoppel cannot be raised to defeat the provisions of a statute.
(See: G.H.C. Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar Bahadur [AIR 1931 PC 79 :
58 IA 91] ; Mathra Parshad & Sons v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC
745 : (1962) 13 STC 180] ; Rishabh Kumar & Sons v. State of
U.P. [1987 Supp SCC 306 : 1988 SCC (Tax) 19 : AIR 1987 SC 1576] )
20. In the impugned order, the District Judge has set aside the fresh arbitral
award dated 17.01.2019, and the order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the
CALA, and thereafter itself recalculated the amount and the order was
passed on such fresh computation. The Jurisdiction and power of Court
under Section 34 to "set aside" award does not include power to modify
such an award. It is settled view that given limited scope of judicial
interference with award under Section 34 on extremely limited grounds
not dealing with merits of an award.
21. Therefore, in view of above authoritative pronouncement the law
becomes explicit that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court
may either dismiss the objections filed, and uphold the award, or set
aside the award if the grounds contained in sub-sections (2) and (2A)
are made out. There is no power to modify an arbitral award. In all these
cases learned District Judge while passing the order under Section 34 of
the Act, 1996 partially set aside the award and after recalculation of the
compensation a different amount of compensation has been awarded
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
and directed the NHAI for its implementation, the modification of
award is not permissible under S. 34 of the Act, 1996.
22. Reverting to the present matter that both the times while earlier at the
time of remand, which is apparent bad in law, and dehors the statute,
and in the present impugned order while modifying the award amount,
the District Judges have opined that there was material irregularity
which shock the conscience of the court, as higher compensation is
awarded to the land owners having lesser extent in comparison to the
land loser of higher extent/area. In the impugned order an error was also
pointed about the rate of solatium and interest.
23. In Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15
SCC 131, when the award was passed ignoring the material evidence,
such decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground
of being patent illegality. It was observed in para 41 thus :
"41. What is important to note is that a decision
which is perverse, as understood in paras 31 and
32 of Associate Builders [Associate
Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2
SCC (Civ) 204] , while no longer being a ground
for challenge under "public policy of India",
would certainly amount to a patent illegality
appearing on the face of the award. Thus, a
finding based on no evidence at all or an award
which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its
decision would be perverse and liable to be set
aside on the ground of patent illegality. .............".
24. In McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., (2006)
11 SCC 181, it was settled that the Court cannot correct errors of the
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin
the arbitration again if it is desired, and observed thus :
"52.The 1996 Act makes provision for the
supervisory role of courts, for the review of the
arbitral award only to ensure fairness.
Intervention of the court is envisaged in few
circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias
by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice,
etc. The court cannot correct errors of the
arbitrators. It can only quash the award leaving
the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it
is desired. ................................"
25. Hence this Court is of the view that the aforesaid appeals are liable to
be disposed of on the aforesaid legal premise. The impugned orders
dated 12/02/2021 passed by the District Judge, BalodaBazar in the
aforesaid cases are accordingly set-aside to the extent the awards were
modified and earlier the remand was made, however, setting aside the
awards of the Arbitrator are confirmed and the parties are free to resume
arbitration again, if they so desire, against the award passed by the
CALA initially on 11.10.2012.
26. The question of inadequate amount of Court fee was affixed in the
Applications preferred under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 by the
appellants/claimants before the District Judge. According to the
Schedule of Chhattisgarh Arbitration Rules, 2007, Court Fee of
Rs.1,000/- was required to be affixed, but the claimants had affixed
Court Fee of Rs.500/- only. Such question remained undecided during
adjudication by the District Judge, which caused detriment to the
revenue. Therefore, it is directed that the claimants/appellants shall pay
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
deficit additional Court Fee of Rs.500/- within a period of 45 days from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which the
application preferred under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 shall be treated
as dismissed and consequently, the appellate order shall also not be
given effect to.
27. It is made clear that any of the observations made by this Court in the
preceding paragraphs shall not come in the way of adjudication before
the Arbitrator inasmuch as this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case. The Arbitrator shall decide the issue considering
all the aspects of the matter afresh, which are raised before him, if any.
On such application being made before the Arbitrator, the same is
expected to be decided expeditiously, preferably within 4 months.
28. Accordingly all the Appeals are disposed of.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Barve
ARBA No. 43 of 2021 &
Other connected matters
HEADLINES
While deciding application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the District Judge having limited supervisory role
cannot suo motu remand or modify the award. He can either set aside the
award or confirm it.
vkosnu i= vUrZxr /kkjk 34 ek/;LFke ,oa lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 dk fofu'p;
djrs le; ftyk U;k;kf/k'k dh vf/k{k.k dh Hkwfedk lhfer gS] Lor% gh vf/kfu.kZ; dks
izfrizsf"kr ;k ifjofrZr ugh dj ldrk A og vf/kfu.kZ; dks vikLr dj ldrk gSa ;k
mldh iq"Vh dj ldrk gSA
