Chattisgarh High Court
Shafi Mohammad (Dead) Through His ... vs Government Of India on 5 August, 2022
1
ARBA No. 55 of 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ARBA No. 55 of 2021
• Shafi Mohammad (Dead) Through His legal heirs
(1) Islam Bi, aged about 60 years, W/o late Shafi Mohammad
(2) Sageer Mohammad, aged about 40 years, S/o late Shafi Mohammad
(3) Pyar Mohammad, aged about 35 years, S/o late Shafi Mohammad
(4) Nasima, aged about 32 years, D/o late Shafi Mohammad.
All legal heirs of late Shafi Mohammad, through power of attorney
holder Shri Sharif Mohammad, aged about 53 years, S/o late Umerdaraj,
R/o Ward No.14, Village-Post-Simga, PS Simga, District Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara (CG)
---- 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
For Appellants : Shri Yogesh Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, Standing Counsel.
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Shri Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General.
ARBA No. 55 of 2021
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
Judgment On Board
05/08/2022 :
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties would submit that the
matter in issue has already been decided by this Court in ARBA
No.43/2021 (Bhagawat Sonker Vs. UOI & Others) & other connected
matters on 7.4.2022 and the present Appeal may also be disposed of in
the same terms. Therefore, with the consent of the parties, the matter is
heard finally.
2. This Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.2.2021 passed
in Misc. Civil Suit (Arbitration) No.42/2019 by the learned District
Judge, Baloda Bazar whereby the award passed by the Arbitrator was
modified and the Court has recalculated the compensation and partly
allowed the Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act').
3. This Appeal was filed on short premise to direct the respondents to
calculate the compensation strictly as per the order of the Arbitrator
dated 17.102019 by taking the market value to the tune of Rs.11,520/-
per square meter, as the learned District Judge has erred in calculating
the compensation under the slab system though the learned Arbitrator in
his order has taken Rs.11520/- per square meter as market value of the
land. So the compensation is required to be calculated on that basis.
Therefore, the Appeal may be allowed.
ARBA No. 55 of 2021
4. Learned counsel appearing for the NHAI has raised an objection that
the award passed by the Arbitrator cannot be modified invoking the
provisions of Section 34 of the Act in the teeth of judgment rendered 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}.
5. This Court, while deciding the batch of Appeals i.e. ARBA No.43/2021
& other connected matters, has already set aside the impugned order
dated 12.2.2021 passed by the District Judge, Baloda Bazar and the
following directions/observations was made:-
"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 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
ARBA No. 55 of 2021
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."
6. Accordingly, the present Appeal is also disposed of in the same terms. A
copy of the judgment rendered by this Court in ARBA No.43/2021 &
other connected matters be placed on record of this Appeal.
7. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Barve
