Karnataka High Court
National Highways Authority Of ... vs Sri Liyakath Ali on 19 July, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:25159
MFA No. 1806 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1806 OF 2022 (AA)
BETWEEN:
1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-MANGALORE
DOOR NO.3-29, "BETHEL"
THARETHOTA, NEAR PUMPWELL (NH-66)
MANGALORE-575002
REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR
COL A.K.JANBAZ (RETD).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA ANGADI B.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI LIYAKATH ALI
S/O LATE C.M.ABOOBAKKER
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT MUBARAK MANZIL
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T MULKI POST
Location: HIGH MANGALURU TALUK.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ARBITRATOR AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D.K.DISTRICT, MANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
HCGP FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2021 PASSED IN ARBITRATION
PETITION NO.2/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:25159
MFA No. 1806 of 2022
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU,
DISMISSING THE ARBITRATION PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 34(2) OF THE A AND C ACT, 1996 R/W 3G(6) OF N H
ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order
passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.
Mangaluru, dated 18.10.2021 in Arbitration Petition
No.2/2021, confirming the order passed by the Arbitrator fixing
the rate of Rs.1,03,000/- per every cent of land along with
other benefits admissible under the provisions of the RFCTLARR
Act 2013 and also with 9% interest applicable under Section
3.H(5) of the NH Act, 1956.
3. The main contention in this appeal is that the
arbitrator as well as the trial Court while considering the matter
fails to take note of material that there is no any basis for
increasing the amount of Rs.1,03,000/- per cent. The counsel
appearing for the appellant also brought to notice of this Court
NC: 2023:KHC:25159
MFA No. 1806 of 2022
point No.3 while fixing the amount. No doubt the arbitrator has
taken note of the fact that Court has to look into the guidance
value of the lands in adjoining villages as on date of Section 3A
of the Notification, the guidance of the land are much higher
than the guidance of the land in Bappanadu village and also in
case of Chitrapur adjacent village of Bappanadu, the
commercial guidance value of the land is Rs.77,00,000/- per
acre. The same was considered by the second respondent while
passing the award for Chitrapur village and also an observation
is made that when the parties suffer perpetual loss due to
severing of this land from rest of this land and demolition of
structure/building and destruction of forest, trees etc.,. Under
the circumstances, the compensation fixed by the second
respondent in the present case is not reasonable and awarded
an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- per cent and the same is
questioned before the District Court and the District Court also
having considered the grounds urged in the suit filed under
Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, comes to the
conclusion that arbitrator has given the reasoning. But on
perusal of the order of the arbitrator though reference is made
with regard to the land of Bappanadu and also Chitrapur and
NC: 2023:KHC:25159
MFA No. 1806 of 2022
the land acquired is situated in Bappanadu, wherein an
observation is made that commercial guidance value of the land
is Rs.77,00,000/- per acre in case of Chitrapur, which is the
adjoining village of Bappanadu and also the acquired land is dry
land and also garden land and no commercial value of the said
village is obtained while passing an order and there is no any
basis for fixing Rs.1,03,000/- and no examples are also given
for having fix the said rate in respect of the Bappanadu in
respect of the nature of the property which was acquired for
formation of NH and when such reasoning is not given and only
on imagination fixed the rate at Rs.1,03,000/- per cent and in
the absence of any guidance value and also the potentiality of
the property which was acquired, matter requires to be
reconsidered by the arbitrator and the Court while exercising
the power under Section 34, not looked into the reasoning
given by the arbitrator and arbitrator jumped into the
conclusion making an observation that parties suffer perpetual
loss due to severing of his lands from rest of his land and
demolition of structure/building and destruction of forest, trees
etc. and hence he had fixed the same and in order to come to
such a conclusion, there is no any material with regard to
NC: 2023:KHC:25159
MFA No. 1806 of 2022
demolition of structure/building and destruction of forest, trees
etc. But comes to the conclusion that rate fixed is very meager
and there must be material to come to other conclusion while
fixing the rate of Rs.1,03,000/- per cent and hence the appeal
requires to be allowed and matter has to be remitted back to
the arbitrator to consider the same and give a finding based on
the material.
4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
The order impugned of the arbitrator as well as the trial
Court is set aside and matter is remitted back to the arbitrator
to consider the matter afresh.
The grounds which have been urged by both the appellant
and also the respondents are kept open to consider the matter
afresh.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AP
