Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. N. Hanumantha Reddy vs The General Manager (Technical) on 4 July, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Anant Ramanath Hegde
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22985-DB
MFA No. 8674 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8674 OF 2016 (AA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. N. HANUMANTHA REDDY
S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY,
HINDU, MAJOR,
R/AT KADEHALLI VILLAGE,
HAMPASANDRA POST,
GUDIBANDE TALUK,
CHICKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
561209
DEAD BY LRS
SMT.ASHWATHAMMA B.H,
D/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY,
W/O MADHURANATHA REDDY N.A,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
by BELUR
RANGADHAMA R/AT NO.798, PRASHANTH NAGARA,
NANDINI CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS
PER THE COURT ORDER DATED: 10.03.2021.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT
ALSO FOR PROPOSED LR'S OF DECEASED APPELLANT)
AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL),
PROJECT DIRECTOR, NH7,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22985-DB
MFA No. 8674 of 2016
HYDERABAD-BENGALURU ROAD,
N.H.A.I. (PIU),
SAHAKAR NAGAR,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE LAND ACQUISITION, N.H.7,
HYDERABAD-BENGALURU ROAD,
(K.M.463.000 TO 524.000),
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS,
K.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DR. M. V. VENKATESH,
I.A.S.
ARBITRATOR (NH-7),
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHICKBALLAPURA - 562101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2
(VK NOT FILED IN RESPECT OF R2(V/C),
SRI LAXMI NARAYAN, AGA FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 09.11.2016 PASSED IN A.S.NO.12/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR,
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:22985-DB
MFA No. 8674 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as
the 'Act of 1996'). In terms of the impugned order, the District
Judge at Chikkaballapur has dismissed the application filed
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and confirmed the award
passed by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act, 1956. (hereafter referred to as the 'Act of
1956').
2. The parties to the proceeding are referred to as the
appellant and respondent as per their designation before this
Court.
3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case
can be summarized as under:
The land bearing Sy. No.15/3, situated at
Gantamvaripalli, Bagepalli taluk was acquired by the second
defendant- National Highway Authority, in terms of preliminary
notification dated 06.05.2005 and final notification was
published on 27.04.2006. Thereafter, the land acquisition
officer passed an award awarding Rs.1,09,834/- per acre.
NC: 2023:KHC:22985-DB
MFA No. 8674 of 2016
4. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land loser has filed
the application before the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the
Act of 1956 seeking enhancement of compensation. The matter
was contested by the National Highway Authority of India. In
terms of the award dated 14.09.2015, the Arbitrator has
enhanced the compensation and fixed Rs.4,40,000/- per acre
as the market value of the land. This award of the Arbitrator is
not questioned by the National Highway Authority and it has
accepted it.
5. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Arbitrator,
the land loser has filed the Arbitration suit in A.S.No.12/2015
on the file of the District Court Judge at Chikkaballapur. In
terms of the impugned order, the learned District Judge at
Chikkaballapur has dismissed the suit on the premise that the
Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the market value of the
land fixed by the Arbitrator.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the land loser is in
appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC:22985-DB
MFA No. 8674 of 2016
7. This Court has considered the grounds raised in the
appeal memo seeking enhancement.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, there is no
scope to modify the award by enhancing the market value fixed
by the Arbitrator and in support of his contention, the learned
counsel would refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of
H.M.Shankaramurthy vs. National Highway Authority
reported in ILR 2010 Karnataka 3711 and also the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Project Director,
NHAI v. M Hakeem reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 473.
9. This Court has considered the ratio laid down in the
aforementioned judgments and also perused the records.
10. In terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 the Court acting
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, has no power to enhance
the market value of the land determined by the Arbitrator. The
Court has the power to set aside the award, to affirm the award
if any of the grounds enumerated under Section 34 of the Act
are made out.
NC: 2023:KHC:22985-DB
MFA No. 8674 of 2016
11. Following the judgment in H.M.Shankaramurthy
vs. National Highway Authority supra, the learned District
judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the Court
has no power to enhance the market value of the land
acquired. This Court does not find any error in it.
12. It is also relevant to note no case is made out in
the application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, to set
aside the award. The law laid down in the case of Project
Director, NHAI v. M Hakeem , supra supports this view.
13. This being the position, this Court is of the view
that no ground is made out by the appellant to interfere with
the impugned judgment dated 09.11.2016.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
GVP
