Smt Munithayamma vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1376 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

             M. F. A. NO. 131 OF 2022 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT VISHWANATHAPURA VILALGE
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
     NH - 207 (HOSAKOTE DABASPET SECTION)
     SITE OFFICE
     NELAMANGALA POST AND TALUK
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 560021.

2.   THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND
     DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL)
     NHAI (MINISTRY OF SHIPPING
     AND PROJECT IMPLIMENTATION)
     TUMKUR ROAD, NAGASANDRA
     BENGALURU 560 073.
                                 2


3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
     DEVANAHALLI (BEERASANDRA)
                                               ....RESPONDENTS

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 75 OF RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.08.2021 , ORDER NO.
LAQ/ARB/NH-207/C.R/21/2018-19 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER     AND    ARBITRATOR,  BENGALURU    RURAL
DISTRICT PRAYING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 21.01.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                             JUDGMENT

The appellant being aggrieved by the arbitral award

dated 24.08.2021, passed by the respondent No.3, has filed

the present appeal.

2. The office has raised objection regarding

maintainability of appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on

maintainability of appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

against the arbitral award, the appeal lies under Section 75

of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in the

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013.

Hence, prays to overrule the office objections.

5. In order to consider the submissions of the learned

counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to examine the

records. The appellant claims to be the owner of land in

Sy.No.112/4 situated at Vishwanathapura Village. The

respondent No.1 proposed to acquire the said land and

issued notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3G of

the National Highways Act, 1956, for the purpose of

widening National Highway and the said preliminary

notification was published in the Gazette. The respondent

No.1 has determined the amount payable as compensation

in terms of Sub-section (5) of Section 3G. The appellant

being aggrieved by the award passed by the respondent

No.1, has approached the arbitrator i.e., respondent No.3

under Sub-section (5) of Section 3G. Sub-section (6) of

Section 3G provides that the provisions of Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under

this Act. In terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 3G, the

respondent No.3 determined the amount of compensation

under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (5) as the case may

be. In the present case, the respondent No.3 has passed an

arbitral award under Sub-section (7) of Section 3G. Any

award passed by respondent No.3 is under the Arbitration &

Conciliation Act. Section 3J of the National Highways Act,

reads as under:

"Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act."

As per Section3J of the Act, provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, are not applicable to the acquisition

proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act.

6. It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings

are initiated under the provisions of the National Highways

Act, 1956, and admittedly, in the present case, respondent

No.3 has passed an award under the provisions of the

Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. As per Section 34 of

the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, any person

aggrieved by an arbitral award, may make an application for

setting aside such award in accordance with Sub-section (2)

and Sub-section (3) of Section 34. The remedy available to

the appellant is to file an application under Section 34 of the

Arbitration & Conciliation Act. The appeal filed by the

appellant is not maintainable under the provisions of the new

Land Acquisition Act, in view of Section 3J of the National

Highways Act. The office objection is upheld.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not

maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant

to challenge the same in the appropriate proceedings before

the appropriate forum, if so advised.

SD/-

JUDGE RD