Bharat Bhushan vs Rano Devi & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 648 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Bharat Bhushan vs Rano Devi & Others on 12 February, 2026

Author: Javed Iqbal Wani

Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
                   LADAKH AT JAMMU

                                               Reserved on:  11.12.2025
                                              Pronounced on: 12.02.2026
                                              Uploaded on:     13.02.2026
                                              Whether operative part or
                                              full     judgment       is
                                              pronounced:         Full

                         AA No.5/2025
                         CM Nos.3391/2025, 3972/2025, 6887/2025,
                         7045/2025,1898/2025, 1899/2025, 1900/2025,
                         7229/2025, 7230/2025 & 7469/2025
                                c/w
                         AA No.4/2025
                         CM Nos.3392/2025, 3969/2025, 6498/2025,
                         4268/2025,6886/2025, 7044/2025, 1895/2025,
                         1896/2025, 1897/2025, 7074/2025, 7076/2025,
                         7468/2025 & 2747/2025

                         WP(C) No.82/2024
                         CM Nos.153/2024, 4921/2024 & 7479/2025

THE HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF               INDIA
THROUGH ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR

BHARAT BHUSHAN
                                   ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
      Through: -   Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate, with
                   Mr. Pawan Kumar Hans, Advocate.
Vs.
RANO DEVI & OTHERS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

                                                      ...RESPONDENT(S)
      Through: -   Mr. R. S. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.
                   Vasharan Thakur, Advocate.
                   Mr. Aseem Kr. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate,
                   with Mr. Anil Kumar & Ms. Tehseena
                   Bukhari, Advocate.
                   Mr. Rajnish Raina, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.
                   Rishu Rajeshwar, Mr. Om Goswami & Mr.

AA No.5/2025 c/w
AA No.4/2025
WP(C) No.82/2024                                               Page 1 of 35
                    Prabhat Sangotra, Advocates - for R41 &
                   188 (in AA No.4 & 5 of 2025) and with Mr.
                   Abid Khan, Advocate - for R-3, 33 & 87 (in
                   AA Nos.4 &/ 2025)
                   Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
                   Paras Gupta, Advocate.
                   Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG, with Ms.
                   Sagira Jafar, Advocate.
                   Mr. O. P. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, with Ms.
                   Anandita Thakur, Advocate.
                   Mr. Parveen Kapahi, Advocate.
                   Mr. Vinod Kotwal, Advocate.
                   Mr. Ajaz Chowdhary, Advocate.
                   Mr. Mohammad Latif Malik, Advocate,
                   with Ms. Bandhan Panotra, Advocate.
                   Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

                                JUDGMENT

1) The issues involved in the instant appeals filed under

Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for

short "the Act of 1996"), are akin and analogous to each

other.

2) In AA No.4/2025, the National Highways Authority of

India (appellant herein) has challenged order dated

10.02.2025 (for short "the impugned order") passed by the

Court of learned Principal District Judge, Reasi (hereinafter

for short "the court below"), in File No.04/2023 titled

"NHAI vs. Rano Devi & Ors." whereby the application filed

by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Act of 1996

AA No.5/2025 c/w

seeking setting aside of the arbitral award dated

26.08.2023 has been dismissed.

3) In AA No.5/2025, the National Highways Authority of

India (appellant herein) has challenged order dated

10.02.2025 (for short "the impugned order") passed by the

Court of learned Principal District Judge, Reasi (hereinafter

for short "the court below"), in File No.03/2023 titled "NHAI

vs. Rano Devi & Ors." whereby application of the appellant

herein filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 seeking

consequential setting aside of the arbitral award dated

26.08.2023 has been dismissed.

FACTS:

AA No.4/2025: Brief Facts:

(i) The land measuring 181 Kanals and 11 Marlas (local),

situated at Village Kundrorian Tehsil Katra District

Reasi, belonging to the respondents herein and other

landowners, came to be acquired for construction of

Delhi-Ludhiana-Amritsar-Katra Expressway and

Notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the

National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act of

1956) were issued, resulting in vesting of the land in

the Central Government free from all encumbrances.

AA No.5/2025 c/w

(ii) The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA)

under the Act of 1956, after considering the objections

filed pursuant to notice dated 09.07.2022, passed an

award dated 09.05.2022 under Section 3G(1) of the

Act of 1956, determining the compensation of the land

at the rate of Rs.59,79,263/ per local kanal for rural

areas and Rs.75,35,000/ per local kanal (commercial)

for urban areas.

(iii) Aggrieved of the said determination by the CALA, the

appellant invoked arbitration under Section 3G(5) of

the Act of 1956, while challenging the same, primarily,

on the grounds that the CALA had passed the award

without informing the appellant having taken into

consideration the selective sale deeds which

comprised of small pieces of land (less than 01 Kanal)

and had taken wrong average sale price, while

pleading further that the CALA recommended

payment of compensation at commercial rates for

agriculture land ignoring the fact that the conversion

of land from agricultural to commercial was without

prior permission of the Government.

(iv) The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, being the

Statutory Arbitrator under the Act of 1956, after AA No.5/2025 c/w

hearing the parties and examining the material on

record, passed an arbitral award dated 26.08.2023,

whereby the market value of the land was re-assessed

and reduced to Rs.56,62,466/ per local kanal, while

referring to Section 26 of the Right to Fair

Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short

"the Act of 2013"), observed that the CALA has

followed the provision of the Act of 1956 as also the

comprehensive guidelines dated 18.12.2017 issued by

the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway

(MoRTH), however, observed that the average sale

price from the sale deeds mentioned in the award

comes to Rs.56,62,466/ per local kanal, which was

required to be considered by the CALA as market

value. The Arbitrator, however, rejected the other

pleas raised by the appellant and consequently, the

Arbitrator set aside the award passed by the CALA

dated 05.09.2022 and its corrigendum dated

18.12.2022 to the limited extent with direction to the

CALA to pass fresh order by considering the market

value at Rs.56,62,466/ per local kanal.

AA No.5/2025 c/w

(v) Consequent to the passing of aforesaid award by the

Arbitrator, the CALA passed a revised award dated

01.09.2023.

(vi) The appellant herein aggrieved of the same filed an

application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before

the Court of Principal District Judge, Reasi, seeking

setting aside of the arbitral award, primarily, on the

premise that the arbitral award was vague, perverse

and based on incorrect findings of law, hence void;

that the market rate of the land in question had been

fixed without considering the provisions of the Act of

2013; that the award was passed on hypothesis,

surmises and conjectures; that the Arbitrator simply

reduced the average cost per kanal of the land by

reducing the number of sale deeds in the original

award and added few sale deeds which were not

considered by CALA in the original award and that the

impugned was arbitrary and in conflict with the public

policy.

(vii) After considering the relevant provisions of the Act of

1956, the Act of 2013 as also the law regarding the

issue at hand, inasmuch as the scope of interference

AA No.5/2025 c/w

provided under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, as also

the grounds urged by the appellant herein, the court

below dismissed the application vide order dated

10.02.2025, while observing that the compensation

awarded had been passed after determination of fair

market value of the acquired land by the Arbitrator

and that the sale deeds relied upon were duly

compared with the acquired land and that the

question of similarity was a pure question of fact duly

examined in the correct perspective with findings

neither perverse nor unreasonable and that the

market value of the land in question was determined

in accordance with the procedure prescribed for

assessment of adjoining lands and that the Act of

2013 does not mandate consideration of sale deeds

relating only to larger plots and that although the

acquired land adjoins Katra town and an express

finding on the multiplier would have been desirable,

the Arbitrator had impliedly accepted the multiplier of

two applied by the CALA for a rural area which was

never questioned or argued by the appellant herein

and that the revised award dated 01.09.2023 passed

by the CALA pursuant to the directions of the

AA No.5/2025 c/w

Arbitrator constituted an arbitral award and that in

absence of any allegation of corruption, bias or

illegality, the award was not against public policy and

did not, as such, warrant interference, leading to the

dismissal of the application filed by the appellant

herein under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

AA No.5/2025: Brief Facts:

i) Land measuring 236 Kanals 4 Marlas, situated at

Village Kundrorian, Tehsil Katra, District Reasi,

belonging to the respondents herein and other

landowners, came to be acquired for construction of

the Delhi-Ludhiana-Amritsar-Katra Expressway and

in this regard Notifications under Sections 3A and 3D

of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act

of 1956) were issued, resulting in vesting of the land

in the Central Government free from all

encumbrances.

ii) The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA)

under the Act of 1956, after considering the objections

filed pursuant to a notice issued in this regard, passed

an award dated 06.09.2022 under Section 3G(1) of the

Act of 1956, thereby determining the compensation at

the rate of Rs.59,79,263/- per local kanal and the AA No.5/2025 c/w

total compensation payable was worked at

Rs.584,32,65,707.00/-.

iii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination, the

appellant invoked arbitration under Section 3G(5) of

the Act of 1956, while challenging the same primarily,

on the grounds that the CALA had passed the award

without informing the appellant having taken into

consideration the selective sale deeds comprising of

small pieces of land (less than 01 kanal) and had

taken wrong average sale price and that the CALA

recommended payment of compensation at

commercial rates for agriculture land ignoring the fact

that the conversion of land from agricultural to

commercial was without prior permission of the

Government.

iv) The Statutory Authority under the Act of 1956, i.e.

Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, after hearing the

parties and examining the material on record, passed

an arbitral award dated 26.08.2023, whereby the

market value was reassessed and reduced to Rs.

56,62,466/- per local kanal, while referring to Section

26 of the Act of 2013, observed that the CALA has

followed the provisions of the Act of 1956 as also the AA No.5/2025 c/w

comprehensive guidelines dated 18.12.2017 (supra),

however, observed that the average sale price from the

sale deeds mentioned in the award was required to be

considered by the CALA as market value.

Consequently, the Arbitrator set aside the award

passed by the CALA dated 06.09.2022 and its

corrigendum dated 18.12.2022 to the limited extent

with direction to the CALA to pass fresh order by

considering the market value at Rs.56,62,466/ per

local kanal.

v) Consequent to the passing of aforesaid awarded by the

Arbitrator, the CALA passed a revised award dated

01.09.2023.

vi) Aggrieved of the revised award (supra), the appellant

herein filed an application under Section 34 of the Act

before the Principal District Judge, Reasi, seeking

setting aside of the arbitral award on similar and

identical grounds referred to above and after

considering the relevant provisions of the Acts of 1956

& 2013 as also the law regarding the issue at hand

and the scope of interference provided under Section

34 of the Act of 1996 as also the grounds urged by the

AA No.5/2025 c/w

appellant herein, the said court below dismissed the

said application vide order dated 10.02.2025.

4) The grounds of challenge urged in AA No.5/2025 and

referred hereinabove being similar and identical to those

urged in AA No.4/2025, are not, for the sake of brevity,

being re-stated herein in order to avoid repetition.

5) Order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the court below is

the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals filed

by the appellant herein under Section 37 of the Act of 1996

and is impugned, inter-alia, on the following grounds that

the court below failed to exercise jurisdiction within the

limited scope of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, by

erroneously upholding the arbitral award, being perverse,

illegal, and contrary to the substantive provisions of the Act

of 2013 read with the Act of 1956, and that the Arbitrator

relied upon irrelevant and extraneous material collected by

CALA, without affording the appellant herein any effective

opportunity to lead evidence and instead adopted a

whimsical and arbitrary procedure in violation of settled

principles of arbitration and natural justice, while further

urging that the court below misapplied Section 26(1)(b) of

the Act of 2013 by approving reliance on sale deeds of small

plots for determination of compensation for irrigated and AA No.5/2025 c/w

non-irrigated land, despite statutory and notified

distinctions in rates, thereby committed an error going to

the root of the matter, contending further that the court

below impermissibly imported considerations of future

potential and principles under the repealed Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, ignoring the statutory scheme of the

Act of 2013, which already accounts for such factors

through multiplier and solatium, while additionally urging

that grave prejudice came to be suffered by the appellant

herein due to denial of opportunity to establish differential

land rates and non-consideration of binding precedents

relied upon, resulting in miscarriage of justice warranting

appellate interference by this Court.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6) Mr. Gagan Basotra, Senior Advocate, appearing for the

appellant herein, while making his submissions in line and

tune with the case/s set up in the appeals in hand, would

vehemently argue that the arbitral award as also the

impugned orders are vitiated by serious illegality and

irregularity, as the Arbitrator relied upon sale deeds of

small pieces of land while determining compensation for

large tracts of land and failed to properly classify the land

AA No.5/2025 c/w

in question as irrigated, non-irrigated or otherwise, and

also ignored applicable valuation guidelines. Mr. Basotra

would further contend that the award passed by the

Arbitrator is in violation of principles of natural justice, and

that the court below as well erred in upholding the award

in question without appreciating these infirmities.

7) On the contrary, the appearing counsels for the

respondents herein, while opposing the submissions of Mr.

Basotra, supported the award in question as also the

impugned orders and would submit that the Arbitrator has

passed the reasoned award after considering the entire

record, while insisting that the scope of interference under

Section 37 of the Act of 1996 is extremely limited and does

not permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of the

Court's view for that of the Arbitrator, contending further

that the appellant herein participated throughout the

arbitral proceedings as also before the court below and

raised all pleas available to it and, thus, cannot be now

permitted to seek a second evaluation of facts under the

guise of perversity or patent illegality.

8) Before proceeding to advert to the merits of the rival

contentions of the appearing counsels for the parties as also

AA No.5/2025 c/w

the issues involved in the case/s, it is deemed necessary

and appropriate to delineate the scope and ambit of an

appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996, which reads as

follows:

37. Appealable orders. - (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:-

(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8;

(b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9:

(c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34 (2) Appeal shall also lie to a court from an order of the arbitral tribunal-

(a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or

(b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17.

(3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

9) A reference hereunder to the law laid down by the

Apex Court qua the ambit and scope of Section 37 supra is

also deemed appropriate and imperative.

The Apex Court in case titled Konkan Railway

Corporation Limited Vs. Chenab Bridge Project

Undertaking reported in 2023 INSC 742, has held as

under:-

AA No.5/2025 c/w

"14.............. At the outset, we may state that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 37 of the Act, as clarified by this Court in MMTC Ltd. Vs. Vedanta Ltd., is akin to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 34 of the Act. Scope of interference by a court in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is restricted and subject to the same grounds as the challenge under Section 34 of the Act.

15. Therefore, the scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction. It is well-settled that courts ought not to interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner. The mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does not entitle courts to reverse the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal. In Dyna Technologies Private Limited Crompton Greaves Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1, this Court held:

"24. There is no dispute that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act limits a challenge to an award only on the grounds provided therein or as interpreted by various courts. We need to be cognizant of the fact that arbitral awards should not be interfered with in a casual and cavalier manner, unless the court comes to a conclusion that the perversity of the award goes to the root of the matter without there being a possibility of alternative interpretation which may sustain the arbitral award. Section 34 is different in its approach and cannot be equated with a normal appellate jurisdiction. The mandate under Section 34 is to respect the finality of the arbitral award and the party autonomy to get their dispute adjudicated by an alternative forum as provided under the law. If the courts were to interfere with the arbitral award in the usual course on factual aspects, then the commercial wisdom behind opting for alternate dispute resolution would stand frustrated.

25. Moreover, umpteen number of judgments of this Court have categorically held that the

AA No.5/2025 c/w

courts should not interfere with an award merely because an alternative view on facts and interpretation of contract exists. The courts need to be cautious and should defer to the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal even if the reasoning provided in the award is implied unless such award portrays perversity unpardonable under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act."

The Apex Court further in the case titled Haryana

Tourism Limited v. M/s Kandhari Beverages Ltd.

reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 38, has held as under:

"8. As per settled position of law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, an award can be set aside only if the award is against the public policy of India. The award can be set aside under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration Act, if the award is found to be contrary to, (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal......"

The Apex Court has also in the case titled Bombay

Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited vs

Samir Narain Bhojwani reported in 2024 INSC 478

observed as under:

15. We need not dwell on the limited scope of the interference in the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

That position is very well settled. However, as far as the appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act is concerned, in the case of MMTC Limited v. Vedanta Limited, in paragraph 14, this Court held thus:

"14. As far as interference with an order made under Section 34, as per AA No.5/2025 c/w

Section 37, is concerned, it cannot be disputed that such interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision. Thus, it is evident that in case an arbitral award has been confirmed by the court under Section 34 and by the court in an appeal under Section 37, this Court must be extremely cautious and slow to disturb such concurrent findings."

(emphasis added)

In another decision of this Court in the case of UHL. Power Company Limited v. State of Himachal Pradesh, in paragraph 16, it was held thus:

"16. As it is, the jurisdiction conferred on courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is fairly narrow, when it comes to the scope of an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction of an appellate court in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set all the more aside an award, is circumscribed. In MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. [MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 293), the reasons for vesting such a limited jurisdiction on the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act have been explained in the following words: (SCC pp.

16667, para 11)

"11. As far as Section 34 is concerned, the position is well settled by now that the Court does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and may interfere on merits on the limited ground provided under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) i.e. if the award AA No.5/2025 c/w

is against the public policy of India. As per the legal position clarified through decisions of this Court prior to the amendments to the 1996 Act in 2015, a violation of Indian public policy, in turn, includes a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, a violation of the interest of India, conflict with justice or morality, and the existence of patent illegality in the arbitral award.

Additionally, the concept of the "fundamental policy of Indian law" would cover compliance with statutes and judicial precedents, adopting a judicial approach, compliance with the principles of natural justice, and Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 (CA)) reasonableness. Furthermore, "patent illegality itself has been held to mean contravention of the substantive law of India, contravention of the 1996 Act, and contravention of the terms of the contract."

(emphasis added)

In the decision of this Court in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited u. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking 3, in paragraph 18, it was held thus:

"18. At the outset, we may state that the jurisdiction of the court under Section 37 of the Act, as clarified by this Court in MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. [MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 293]. is akin to the jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act. [Id, SCC p. 167, para 14:"14. As far as interference with an order made under Section 34, as per Section 37, is concerned, it cannot be disputed that such interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that

AA No.5/2025 c/w

the exercise of power by the court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision."] Scope of interference by a court in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is restricted and subject to the same grounds. challenge under Section 34 of the Act."

(emphasis added)

What emanates from a closer reading of the aforesaid

provision and position of law, is that the Appellate Court

under Section 37 supra cannot re-appreciate the evidence,

re-evaluate factual findings or substitute its own view

merely because another view is possible and that the errors

of fact or erroneous appreciation of evidence by the

Arbitrator would not constitute valid grounds for

interference, unless such errors go to the root of the matter

and fall within the narrow category of patent illegality or

contravention of fundamental policy of Indian law.

10) From the above, thus, it can safely be concluded that

Section 37 of the Act of 1996 provides a limited statutory

right of appeal only against orders expressly enumerated

therein and does not per se confer a general or unrestricted

right of appeal against all orders arising out of arbitral

proceedings and that an appeal under Section 37 in not a

continuation of arbitral proceedings nor does it partake the

character of a regular first appeal and, therefore, the

AA No.5/2025 c/w

Appellate Court under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 would

not sit as a court of correction over the arbitral award as its

jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate in the

conventional sense being essentially endorsed by the

legislative intent underlying Section 37 read with Section 5

of the Act of 1996, to ensure minimal judicial interference

in the arbitral matters and to preserve the finality of arbitral

awards.

It is also pertinent to note here that having regard to

the aforesaid position and principles of law that where an

appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 is directed

against an order passed under Section 34 of the said Act,

the scope of scrutiny becomes even more circumscribed

requiring the Appellate Court to examine only whether the

court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act of

1996 has remained within the statutory confines provided

by the said Section, without independently reassessing the

arbitral award on merits.

It would also be significant to mention here that even

the grounds of public policy and patent illegality

enumerated under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 are to be

construed narrowly, in that, the Appellate Court, while

exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act of 1996, AA No.5/2025 c/w

is concerned not with whether it would have arrived at a

different conclusion, but with whether the court under

Section 34 of the Act of 1996 has applied the correct legal

tests and exercised its discretion judiciously. In fact,

interference would be warranted only where the Court

under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 has acted either in

excess of jurisdiction, ignored settled principles of law or

rendered a decision that is manifestly perverse.

It is also relevant to mention here that, in essence, an

appeal under Section 37of the Act of 1996 is not a second

opportunity provided to a party to assail the arbitral award

on merits. Rather it is a limited remedy designed to correct

jurisdictional or legal errors committed by a Court

exercising power under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and

not to provide a forum for rehearing or re-adjudication of

the arbitral dispute.

11) Keeping in mind the aforesaid position and principles

of law and reverting back to the case/s in hand, perusal of

the arbitral award dated 26.08.2023 tends to show that the

Arbitrator has considered the sale deeds relied upon by the

CALA, examined the average rates and thereafter

reassessed the market value and has, in fact, reduced the

compensation determined by the CALA, which by itself AA No.5/2025 c/w

belies the contention of the appellant herein that award is

based on irrelevant or extraneous considerations. The plea

of the appellant herein that the sale deeds of small parcels

of land in questions were impermissibly relied upon is a

matter which squarely falls within the domain of

appreciation of evidence and a closer examination of the

record reveals that the Arbitrator has recorded reasons for

adopting the methodology used, having regard to the

location, surrounding development and potential of the

acquired land in question.

12) The next contention of the appellant herein regarding

denial of opportunity by the court/forums below is also

found to be any without any substance, in that, the record

available on the files reflect that the appellant herein has

duly participated in the arbitral proceedings, filed pleadings

and submissions and raised objections to the valuation

methodology and, therefore, in this view of the matter, mere

dissatisfaction with the outcome by the court/forums below

cannot be equated or by any sense of imagination said to

be violation of the principles of natural justice.

13) Further examination and perusal of the record tends

to show that the court below has meticulously examined

AA No.5/2025 c/w

each ground urged by the appellant herein in the

application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and

has rightly held that none of the grounds fall within the

grounds enumerated in the said Section, being patent

illegality or public policy. Even before this Court the

appellant herein has failed to specifically plead or

demonstrate as to what particular perversity, illegality or

jurisdictional error has been committed by the court below.

Instead, perusal of the impugned orders reflect correct

appreciation of the law laid down by the Apex Court by the

court below in the matter and the impugned orders are

found to be well-reasoned and in tune and consonance with

law, without there being any perversity, illegality or

jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section

37 of the Act of 1996 in the instant appeals by this Court

on account of mere omnibus or vague assertions that the

impugned orders suffer from perversity or illegality, without

pinpointing the precise error or else demonstrating how the

statutory limits of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 have been

transgressed and, therefore, in absence of any specific

pleadings disclosing the precise perversity or illegality

alleged, the instant appeals under Section 37 of the Act of

1996 cannot be sustained on such general or

AA No.5/2025 c/w

unsubstantiated assertions and, thus, the instant appeals,

in essence, cannot, but said to be, an attempt to secure a

re-appreciation of facts and evidence, which is

impermissible in law.

14) For what has been observed, considered and analyzed

hereinabove, the instant appeals are found to be devoid of

any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed, as a

consequence whereof, orders dated 10.02.2025 passed by

the learned Principal District Judge, Reasi, dismissing the

application(s) under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 filed by

the appellant herein, are upheld.

15) The record be sent back.

CM Nos.3392/2025, 3969/2025, 6498/2025, 6886/2025, 1895/2025, 1896/2025, 1897/2025, 7074/2025, 7076/2025, 7468/2025 & 2747/2025 in AA No.4/2024

Having regard to the issues involved in the instant

applications, the determination of the same is left open to

be adjudicated upon by the appropriate court/forums and

in this regard the parties shall be free to approach the

concerned court/forums.

CM Nos.3972/2025, 6887/2025, 7045/ 2025,1898/2025, 1899/2025, 1900/2025, 7229/2025, 7230/2025 & 7469/2025 in AA No.5/2025:

Having regard to the issues involved in the instant

applications, the determination of the same is left open to AA No.5/2025 c/w

be adjudicated upon by the appropriate court/forums and

in this regard the parties shall be free to approach the

concerned court/forums.

1) The petitioner, in the instant petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks enforcement

of a statutory award dated 01.09.2023 passed under

Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short

Act of 1956), revised pursuant to arbitral award dated

26.08.2023 under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, besides

seeking a direction against the respondents to disburse

compensation together with all statutory components and

interest in respect of land measuring 03 Kanals 06 Marlas

covered under Khasra No.213-min situated at Village

Kundrorian, District Reasi, having acquired title through

registered sale deeds in the year 2013 and since then

reflected in the relevant revenue records, which land has

been acquired by the respondents for the National Highway

project being Construction, Maintenance and Operation of

Delhi-Ludhiana-Amritsar-Katra Expressway notified under

Sections 3A and 3D of the Act of 1956 culminating into the

acquisition of the land in question along with other

adjoining land.

AA No.5/2025 c/w

2) An award dated 05.09.2022 came to be passed by the

Competent Authority (CALA) in terms of Section 3G(1) of the

Act of 1956 wherein the rate of the land in question was

fixed at Rs.59,79,2631/- per local kanal in rural areas.

Aggrieved whereof, the executing agency, namely the

National Highways Authority of India (for short "NHAI"),

respondents 1 to 3 herein, assailed the said award before

the Arbitrator being the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu,

in terms of Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, whereupon, the

said Arbitrator in terms of arbitral award dated 26.08.2023,

reduced the rate of land in question to Rs. 56,62,4661/-

per local kanal of land and directed revision of the award

by the CALA, in furtherance whereof, the CALA passed a

revised award dated 01.09.2023, pertaining to various

landowners including the petitioner herein mentioned in

the apportionment statement and the compensation

payable towards the acquired land duly quantified.

3) The grievance projected by the petitioner in the instant

petition is that despite the revised award dated 01.09.2023

having attained finality for not having been thrown

challenge to by the respondents herein, the compensation

qua the said land has not been deposited nor disbursed in

favour of the petitioner in clear violation of Section 3H of AA No.5/2025 c/w

the Act of 1956 and the National Highways (Manner of

Depositing the Amount by the Central Government; Making

Requisite Funds Available to the Competent Authority for

Acquisition of Land) Rules, 2019 (for short 'the Rules of

2019).

4) Reply to the petition has been filed by the

respondents, wherein the petition is being opposed on the

premise that respondent 3 herein vide letter dated

27.12.2023 intimated the Competent Authority/

respondent No.4 herein about the revised award under

Section 3G of the Act of 1956 and the deposition of the

compensation "under protest" and that it is respondent

who has to raise the demand of award after furnishing

details of the landholders/beneficiaries on the Bhoomi

Rashi e-Portal of the Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways and that the arbitral award dated 26.08.2023

and revised award dated 01.09.2023 has been challenged

under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the Court of

Principal District Judge, Reasi.

5) Respondent No.4 has also filed reply to the petition,

wherein, after giving the factual background, it is stated

that the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996

filed by the respondent 3-NHAI stands dismissed by the AA No.5/2025 c/w

Court of Principal District Judge, Reasi, vide judgment and

order dated 10.02.2025 and that consequently the

respondent 4 has initiated the process of disbursement of

the compensation amount to the land owners and has, vide

letter dated 17.03.2025, requested the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Katra, to submit the account details of all the

land owners.

6) During the pendency of the instant petition,

respondent 3 & 4 have filed a supplementary affidavit,

wherein it has been stated that after dismissal of the

application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 by the Court

of Principal District Judge, Reasi, vide judgment and order

dated 10.02.2025, respondent 3-NHAl has, vide

communication dated 23.03.2025, asked the respondent 4

to de-notify the land mentioned therein in the said

communication, which includes the land of the petitioner

herein as well, for the reasons stated therein.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

7) Before adverting to the merits of the case at hand, it

would be advantageous to refer hereunder to the provisions

of Section 3G and 3H of the Act of 1956:

AA No.5/2025 c/w

3G.Determination of amount payable as compensation.--(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.

(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.

(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.

(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government--

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-

section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration--

(a)the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A;

(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking

AA No.5/2025 c/w

possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;

(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;

(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.

3H. Deposit and payment of amount.--(1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land.

(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.

(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.

(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

(5) Where the amount determined under section 3G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent, per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.

AA No.5/2025 c/w

(6)Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit.

What emanates from the plain reading of Section 3G

supra is that the same constitutes a self-contained

statutory mechanism for determination of amount payable

as compensation for land acquired under the Act. Sub-

section (1) of the said Section mandates that where land is

acquired, the amount payable shall be determined by the

Competent Authority having due regard to the factors

specified therein including the market value of the land on

the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A

and in the event of disagreement with such determination,

sub-section (5) provides a statutory right to seek reference

to arbitration, whereupon the Arbitrator appointed by the

Central Government is empowered to adjudicate upon the

quantum of compensation and the determination made by

the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) attains the status of a

statutory adjudication becoming binding upon the parties,

subject only to challenge on the limited grounds available

under the Act of 1996.

AA No.5/2025 c/w

Thus, what emerges from the above is that the scheme

of Section 3G ensures a balance between expeditious

acquisition of land for public purposes and fair, just and

reasonable compensation to the landowners/ holders, while

consciously restricting judicial interference beyond the

statutory framework. It also emanates from the above that

the statutory obligation under Section 3H of the Act casts a

duty upon the Central Government to deposit the amount

determined under Section 3G while sub-section (2)

obligates the Competent Authority to disburse the amount

of compensation to the persons entitled. The Rules of 2019

(supra) as well operationalize this mandate by prescribing

the mode and manner in which the compensation funds are

to be made available and disbursed.

8) As record tends to show that since the respondent 3-

NHAI was availing the statutory remedy of Section 34, as

provided for in Section 3G of the said Act, therefore, the

respondents cannot be said to have breached the provisions

of the Act so far as the same relate to deposition of the

compensation or payment thereof. Since now the said

remedy under Section 34 availed by respondent 3 herein

and the appeals thereafter filed under Section 37 of the Act

of 1996 by the said respondent 3 herein stand dismissed AA No.5/2025 c/w

above, therefore, the respondent 3-NHAI is bound to

compensate the petitioner qua the land in question.

However, the plea which now requires consideration raised

by the respondent No.3-NHAI is regarding de-

notification/de-scoping of a portion of the acquired land,

record available on the file reveals that during the pendency

of proceedings, the executing agency referred to subsequent

project realignment on account of overlapping of the railway

tunnel with the Expressway alignment and addressed

communications inter se seeking de-notification of certain

parcels of land on the ground that the same had become

infructuous for the project.

The aforesaid plea urged by the respondents, however,

is unacceptable while relying upon subsequent

communication as it is aimed at to defeat the petitioner's

accrued right of receiving compensation for the land in

question, for the reason that there is no provision in the Act

of 1956 providing for de-notifying of the land for which

acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1956 have been

initiated and the same had already culminated into vesting

of land in the Central Government under Section 3D of the

Act of 1956 and permitting the respondents to withhold

payment of compensation to the petitioner herein on the AA No.5/2025 c/w

strength of a proposed or contemplated de-notification

would result in grave prejudice to the petitioner herein and,

in essence, would amount to allowing the respondents to

enjoy the benefit of acquisition without bearing its statutory

burden. In law, such a course is impermissible and

contrary to the scheme of the Act of 1956 as well as the

constitutional provisions contained in Article 300A.

9) In view of the aforesaid analysis, the only inescapable

conclusion that could be drawn is that the denial of

compensation to the petitioner herein by the respondents

herein qua land in question, after having vested in the

Central Government, is illegal and violative of the Act of

1956 as also infringement of Article 300A of the

Constitution, in that, the petitioner herein has established

a clear legal right qua the land in question and receipt of

compensation thereof and the respondents herein having

failed to discharge a corresponding statutory duty in this

regard.

10) For what has been observed, considered and analyzed

hereinabove, the instant petition succeeds and as a

consequence whereof, the respondents herein are directed

to disburse the amount of compensation in favour of the

AA No.5/2025 c/w

petitioner herein qua the land measuring 03 kanals 06

marlas under Khasra No.213-min situated at Village

Kundrorian District Reasi, within a period of two months

from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served

upon the respondents herein, failing which the

compensation amount shall be payable with interest @12%

per annum from the date of award till its final realization.

(Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge

Srinagar 12.02.2026 "Bhat Altaf-Secretary"

Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes

AA No.5/2025 c/w