Karnataka High Court
The Deputy General Manager vs Durgavva W/O. Devappa Bannimatti on 28 October, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB
MFA No. 102334 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.102334 OF 2024
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 VINAYAKA B
V
Location: HIGH 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
BENCH
Date: 2024.11.05
11:28:44 +0530
FOR LAND ACQUISITION,
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
NH-4, "DHARA MAHAL", UB HILL,
5TH CROSS, DHARWAD-580007.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.G.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DURGAVVA W/O. DEVAPPA BANNIMATTI,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB
MFA No. 102334 of 2024
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIGGAON, TQ: SHIGGAON,
DIST: HAVERI-58105.
2. THE ARBITRATOR FOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS
AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-4 AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI-581110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE 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.72/2023 DATED 27.01.2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.BARRED BY PERIOD OF LIMITATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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:15764-DB
MFA No. 102334 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.72/2023.
2. Respondent No.1 herein is the owner of the land
bearing Sy. No.203/3 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 11.08.2020 issued under Section
3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and final notification
dated 29.10.2020 issued under Section 3(D) of the National
Highways Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the
award on 25.01.2021 by fixing the value of the land for a sum
of Rs.163/- 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 the petition and has enhanced the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB
award amount. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has
filed an arbitration petition in Arbitration Petition No.72/2023
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
Court. Even otherwise, to state that the judicial trend
(2021) 9 SCC 1
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB
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
that no power of modification of an award exists in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB
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
Sessions Judge, Haveri in Arbitration Petition No.72/2023 filed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15764-DB
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
RSH / Ct:vh
