Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manav Bhanot vs National Highway Authority Of India on 15 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 15 th OF MAY, 2024
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 7 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
MANAV BHANOT S/O SHRI R.K. BHANOT, AGED ABOUT
41 YEARS, R/O BHANOT HOUSE, OPPOSITE
GORAKHPUR, P.S. GORAKHPUR, DISTT. JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI MANOJ SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI QUAZI
FAKHRUDDIN AND MS. LAVANYA VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THR. ITS
DIRECTOR, PROJECT EXECUTION DIVISION,
JABALPUR, ROAD TRANSPORT MINISTRY OF
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - ADVOCATE)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging order dated 20.12.2016 passed by Third
Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in M.J.C.A.V. No.10/2016.
2. Brief facts of the case is that an award was passed on 11.07.2014 in
favour of farmers and land owners which was acquired under National
Highways Act, 1956. By said award, appellant was awarded compensation of
Rs.49.17 lacs. Appellant being aggrieved by award in respect of compensation
awarded for acquisition of his lands made a reference for arbitration under
Section 3 G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. Matter was referred before
Commissioner Jabalpur. Commissioner Jabalpur in arbitration enhanced the
award by Rs.49,40,760/- along with interest @ 9% from date of land
acquisition award i.e. on 11.07.2014 till his realization. Commissioner passed
its order on 13.01.2016. Appellant being aggrieved by order passed by
Commissioner filed its objection under Section 34 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. It was submitted before the Court that compensation
ought to have been decided under Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter Act is referred to as RR Act, 2013) and a solatium amount is also to
be paid to appellant under Section 30 of said Act. Further prayer was made for
18% interest on the award. Reference Court placing reliance on judgment
passed in case of Associate Builders Vs. Delhi Development Authority,
reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49 and also on Swan Gold Mining Limited v.
Hindustan Copper Limited, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 739 held that award
which has been passed is not against any public policy nor same has been
passed beyond jurisdiction. Award has been passed in accordance with
established procedure and after taking all the documents into consideration.
Therefore, there is no scope for interference under Section 34 of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act and reference application was dismissed vide order dated
20.12.2016 in case No. M.J.C.A.V. 10/16 by Third Additional District Judge,
Jabalpur.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for appellant argued that Courts
below has committed an error in dismissing his application under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Determination of compensation is
contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law and therefore grounds enumerated
for challenge to award under Section 34 (2) (b) (ii) was available to appellant
and Court below has committed an error of law in overlooking the same and
holding that no grounds which are enumerated in Section 34 is available to the
appellant.
4. Counsel appearing for respondent submitted that competent authority
of land acquisition has determined amount of compensation Rs.49.17 lacs.
Prayer was made for modification of said order by filing application under
Section 3 G (5) of National Highways Act, 1956. Learned Arbitrator on basis of
material evidence and documents available on record has enhanced the
compensation amount Rs.49,40,760/-. Reference Court rejected the application
after consideration records and arguments of the parties. It is submitted that
compensation has rightly been awarded after giving due opportunity of hearing
to appellant. Compensation was calculated applying Collector guidelines for
year 2011 and 2012 as provided under Section 3 G (7)(a) of the National
Highways Act, 1956. Market value of land was taken on date of publication of
notification under Section 3(a) of National Highway Act. Learned Court rightly
dismissed application under Section 34 not being outside the scope of grounds
which are available under Section 34 for challenge. Appellant for the first time
has raised new grounds in appeal that provisions of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 will be applicable, therefore, said documents and pleadings may not be
considered by this Court at appellate stage. It is also submitted that provisions
of Act of 2013 is not applicable on account of fact that entire proceedings has
been concluded under National Highway Act prior to 01.01.2015. In view of
same, appeal be dismissed.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties.
6. Award under National Highways Act, 1956 was passed on 11.07.2014.
Proceedings were initiated under National Highways Act, 1956. Calculation of
compensation was made on basis of notification under Section 3(1)(a) dated
07.06.2011 and guideline of said period was taken into account for award of
compensation. Valuation was made by registered valuer appointed by National
Highway Authority. Order of compensation was passed on 11.07.2014 in
accordance with Schedule-I attached to the award. Proceedings for award of
compensation was concluded on 11.07.2014. Reliance was placed by learned
senior counsel for appellant that order passed by High Court of M.P. on dated
01.05.2018 in W.P. No.8648/2018 wherein it has been held that provisions of
RR Act, 2013 will be applicable in awarding compensation to land owners
whose land has been acquired under National Highways Act, 1956 as wrong law
was made applicable for calculation of compensation amount, therefore, case of
appellant is covered under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996. As per SO No.2368(E) published in Gazette of India on 28.08.2015
for removal of difficulties. Central Government has made following order which
is quoted as under :-
"1. (1) This Order may be called the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties)
Order, 2015.
(2) It shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of
September, 2015.
2. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, relating to the determination of
compensation in accordance with the First Schedule,
rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the
Second Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance
with the Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land
acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth
Schedule to the said Act."
7. On going through aforesaid order, it is found that order came into
force from 01.09.2015. From said date, provisions of RR Act, 2013 for
determination of compensation in accordance with First Schedule,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement in accordance with Second Schedule and
infrastructure amenities in accordance with Third Schedule shall apply to all
cases of land acquisition under enactments specified in Fourth Schedule of the
Act. Thirteen enactments are mentioned in the Fourth Schedule which includes
the National Highway Act, 1956. Now, question before Court is whether said
order will be applicable in case of appellant and compensation ought to have
been calculated under RR Act of 2013 and therefore arbitral award which has
been passed is in conflict with Public Policy of India.
8. It has specifically been mentioned in order SO No.2368(E) which is
enacted on powers conferred under Section 113(1) of RR Act, 2013 that said
order shall be made applicable from 01.09.2015. Award was passed on
11.07.2014 and on said date, order SO No.2368(E) was not in existence. Said
order was made applicable prospectively i.e. from 01.09.2015, therefore, no
benefit can be given to appellant of said order of Central Government.
Competent land acquisition authority has decided the case of appellant on basis
of law existing at that time. Court will not enter into merits of evidence to check
adequacy of compensation amount. As appeal under Section 37 is to be
considered and decided strictly within the ambit of grounds mentioned Section
34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Ground 34(2)(b)(ii) is not
available to the appellant.
9. In view of aforesaid, appeal is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
sp/-
