Karnataka High Court
The Deputy General Manager vs Basavaraj S/O Fakkirappa Sali on 28 October, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15763-DB
MFA No. 102314 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102314 OF 2024 (AA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
(TECH) AND THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, SHIVA KRUPA NIVAS,
VIVEKANAND NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, NEXT TO EXCELLENT
NEET ACADEMY, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD-580004.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
Dharwad Bench
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUSITION,
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH 4,
'DHARA MAHAL' UB HILL, 5TH CORSS,DHARWAD 580007.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S. G. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15763-DB
MFA No. 102314 of 2024
AND:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O. FAKKIRAPPA SALI,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIGGAON, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI-581205.
2. THE ARBITRATOR FOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-4, AND DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI 581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.37(1) OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI IN ARBITRATION PETITION
NO.78/2023 DATED 27.01.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15763-DB
MFA No. 102314 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section
37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
challenging the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Arbitration
Petition No.78/2023.
2. Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the land
bearing Sy. No.200/4 measuring 4000 square meters situated
at Bankapur village of Shiggaon Taluk of Haveri District. The
appellant-authority herein acquired the said land in dispute for
the purpose of construction of national highway under
preliminary notification dated 20.08.2019 issued under Section
3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and final notification
dated 26.12.2019 issued under Section 3(D) of the National
Highways Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the
award on 27.07.2020 by fixing the value of total 4000 square
meters of the land for a sum of Rs.160/- per square meter.
Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 herein
approached the Arbitrator by filing a petition under Section
3G(5) of the National Highways Act. The Arbitrator has allowed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15763-DB
the petition and has enhanced the award amount. Being
aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed an arbitration
petition in Arbitration Petition No.78/2023 under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Court of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. The learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by
the appellant and modified the award passed by the Arbitrator
by enhancing the compensation. Being aggrieved by the same,
the appellants are before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on
the order passed by this Court in similar circumstances in
M.F.A. No.2930/2020 disposed of on 11.01.2023 following the
Apex Court judgment in the case of Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India vs. M.Hakeem and
another1, while dealing with the powers of learned District
Court in a suit filed under Section 34 or the Act, in paragraphs
42 and 48 has held as follows:
"42. It can therefore be said that this question has
now been settled finally by at least 3 decisions of this
(2021) 9 SCC 1
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15763-DB
Court. Even otherwise, to state that the judicial trend
appears to favour an interpretation that would read into
Section 34 a power to modify, revise or vary the
award would be to ignore the previous law contained in
the 1940 Act; as also to ignore the fact that the 1996
Act was enacted based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 which, as
has been pointed out in Redfern and Hunter on
International Arbitration, makes it clear that, given the
limited judicial interference on extremely limited grounds
not dealing with the merits of an award, the 'limited
remedy' under Section 34 is co-terminus with the
'limited right', namely, either to set aside an award or
remand the matter under the circumstances mentioned in
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.
XXXX
48. Quite obviously if one were to include the
power to modify an award in Section 34, one would be
crossing the Lakshman Rekha and doing what, according
to the justice of a case, ought to be done. In interpreting
a statutory provision, a Judge must put himself in the
shoes of Parliament and then ask whether Parliament
intended this result. Parliament very clearly intended
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15763-DB
that no power of modification of an award exists in
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is only for
Parliament to amend the aforesaid provision in the light
of the experience of the courts in the working of the
Arbitration Act, 1996, and bring it in line with other
legislations the world over."
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and
the learned AGA for respondent No.2 do not dispute the
proposition of law held by the Apex Court in the above said
case.
5. In view of the above judgment of the Apex Court, it
is clear that the District Court in a suit filed under Section 34 of
the Act has only power either to confirm the order passed by
the Arbitrator or set aside the order and remand the matter to
the Arbitrator. But, in the case on hand, the learned District
Judge has modified the order passed by the Arbitrator and the
same is contrary to Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated
27.01.2024 passed by the Court of the Principal District and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15763-DB
Sessions Judge, Haveri in Arbitration Petition No.78/2023 filed
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is set
aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Haveri.
7. The learned District Judge is directed to reconsider
the matter afresh and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SMM - para 1 and 2
RSH - para 3 to till end
