JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Though the matters have came up for admission, with consent of both parties, they are taken up for final disposal.
3. The appellants/claimants are the land losers.
Respondent No.1 acquired the lands of the appellants under Notification dated 24.11.2009 for the purpose of expansion of National Highway-13. Respondent No.2 is the beneficiary of the said acquisition. Respondent No.1 - Competent Authority for Land Acquisition prescribed under Section 3G of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'N.H. Act') passed awards determining the compensation at various rates for the lands of the appellants. The Central Government appointed respondent
10
No.3 as per Section 3G(5) of the N.H. Act to arbitrate the grievance of the appellants against the awards of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 partially accepted the claim of the appellants for enhancement.
4. Aggrieved by the awards passed by respondent No.3, the appellants approached the jurisdictional District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Arbitration Act'). The learned District Judge by the awards impugned in the above appeals rejected those applications.
5. The particulars of the lands, the award of respondent Nos.1 and 3 are set out in the table below for the purpose of brevity.
Sl. Case No. Arbitration Sy.No. and NA Potential Amount Amount awarded No. Application/ extent of land land awarded by by Arbitral Suit No. Sq.mtrs. CALA Tribunal
1. MFA No.200712/22 AA Sy.151/A Dry land Rs.37.05/- Rs.148.20/- No.11/2017 1040Sq.mtr per sq.mtr. per sq.mtr.
2. MFA No.200260/22 AA Sy.56(56/2C/1) Dry land Rs.23.35/- Rs.57.50/- No.43/2018 164Sq.mtr per sq.mtr. per sq.mtr.
3. MFA No.200685/22 AA Sy.468/1,468/2 Irrigated land Rs.35.25/- Rs.70.50/- No.42/2018 600Sq.mtr per sq.mtr. per sq.mtr.
4. MFA No.200688/22 AA Sy.305/1/2 Dry land Rs.21.50/- Rs.86/- No.118/2018 1040Sq.mtr per sq.mtr. per sq.mtr.
5. MFA No.202462/22 AA Sy.3 Dry land Rs.65.25/- Rs.436/- No.10/2016 730Sq.mtr per sq.mtr. per sq.mtr.
11
6. The challenge of the appellants/claimants for the arbitral award was that respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not grant solatium, interest and other statutory benefits as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) and (2) and Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the award was opposed to the public policy.
7. The learned District Judge relying on Section 3J of the N.H. Act rejected the applications on the ground that as per the said provision, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not applicable to the acquisition under N.H. Act. The learned District Judge held that the scope of Section 34 of Arbitration Act, in such award is very limited and in view of Section 3J of N.H. Act, there is no scope to interfere with the arbitral award of respondent No.3.
8. No doubt, under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, the scope of interference in the arbitral award is very limited. However, Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration Act provides that, if arbitral award is in conflict with the public
12
policy of India, the Court can interfere in such awards. Clauses-(ii) and (iii) of Explanation-1 to Section 34 state that, if the award is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law or it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice, that amounts to an award opposed to public policy of India.
9. The reliance of the learned District Judge and the Arbitral Tribunal in rejecting the statutory benefits was Section 3J of the N.H. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para-41 of the judgment in Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in AIR 2019 SC 4689 struck down Section 3J of the N.H. Act as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. Para 41 of the said judgment is as follows:
"41. There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded the issue raised in these cases. This assumes importance in view of the plea of Shri Divan that the impugned judgments should be set aside on the ground that when the arbitral awards did not provide for solatium or interest, no Section 34
13
petition having been filed by the landowners on this score, the Division Bench judgments that are impugned before us ought not to have allowed solatium and/or interest. Ordinarily, we would have acceded to this plea, but given the fact that the Government itself is of the view that solatium and interest should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and 2015, in the interest of justice we decline to interfere with such orders, given our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, Appeal @ SLP
(C) No. 9599/2019 is dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Since the award and the order of the learned District Judge are contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh's case referred to supra, apparently they are opposed to public policy of India.
14
12. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in similar cases of other land owners in MFA Nos.200228/2022(AA), 200229/2022 and 200230/2022, this Court set aside the entire award and remitted back the matters for fresh consideration. The same principle is applicable to these cases also. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed.
ii) The impugned orders of the District Judge and the awards of respondent No.3 are hereby set aside.
iii) The matters are remitted back to Respondent No.3 - Arbitrator/Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with the above observations and the orders in MFA Nos.200228/2022, 200229/2022 and 200230/2022.
15
iv) The said exercise shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*