Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rattan Chand & Anr vs National Highways Authority Of India & ... on 13 June, 2023
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal No. 9 of 2023 along with Arbitration Appeal No. 11 of 2023.
.
Reserved on: 19th May, 2023.
Decided on : 13th June, 2023.
1. Arb. Appeal No. 9 of 2023.
Rattan Chand & Anr. ...Appellants.
Versus National Highways Authority of India & Anr.
r to
....Respondents.
2. Arb. Appeal No. 11 of 2023.
Hari Ram & Ors. ...Appellants.
Versus
National Highways Authority of India & Anr.
....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant(s): Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1.1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:32:06 :::CIS
...2...
Mr. B.N. Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.2.
.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Both these appeals were heard and are being decided together as these arise from a common judgment passed by learned District Judge, Mandi. Additionally common questions of facts and law are also involved in both these appeals. The chronology and details of the matters included herein are as under:-
Sr. Arbitration Title Particulars of the Particulars of the No. Appeal petition before the case before the Number District Judge, Mandi. Arbitrator.
1. 9 of 2023. Rattan Chand vs. Arb. Pet. No. 8 of Arb. Case No. NHAI & Anr. 2022. 990 of 2016
2. 11 of 2023 Hari Ram & Ors. Arb. Pet. No. 11 of Arb. Case No. vs. NHAI & Anr. 2022. 993 of 2016
2. The lands of appellants have been acquired in revenue estate Alsu, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., for building, four Laning etc., maintenance, management and operation of NH-21 (Bilaspur-Nerchowk Section). Notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "NH Act") was issued on 21st April, 2012. The competent authority assessed market value of the acquire ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:32:06 :::CIS ...3...
land of appellants at Rs. 31 lakhs per bigha irrespective of .
classification and nature of the land.
3. The appellants having remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the competent authority, approached the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act individually. They claimed compensation @ of Rs. One Crore transaction Ex.
r Px. to per bigha. Reliance was placed by them on an exemplar sale Appellants also challenged the potentiality assessed by the competent authority and claimed parity with the adjoining revenue estate Dehar, where competent authority had offered compensation @ Rs.35 lakh per bigha and on such basis, in alternative appellants claimed the compensation at the same rate as awarded for the land in revenue estate Dehar. Benefits in terms of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2019)9 SCC 304 were also sought.
4. Learned Arbitrator vide common award dated 29.06.2019 declined any enhancement in the compensation payable to the appellants, however, he ordered payment of solatium @30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:32:06 :::CIS ...4...
thereon in favour of the appellants. Learned Arbitrator .
declined to countenance sale transaction Ex. Px simply on the ground that it pertained to a period which was more than one year later than the issuance of notification under Section 3-A of the Act. As regards the claim of appellants seeking parity with the treatment given to landowners of revenue estate Dehar, learned Arbitrator declined such claim also on the ground that the potential value of the land in revenue estate Dehar was better than the revenue estate Alsu for firstly, it was at a distance of 1-2 kilometers from Village Alsu and secondly it was more proximate to the industrial township of Barmana.
5. Appellants individually preferred objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "A & C Act") before the learned District Judge, Mandi.
The award dated 29.06.2019 passed by learned Arbitrator has been set aside by the learned District Judge, Mandi, in so far as the award pertained to Arbitration Case Nos. 990 of 2016 and 993 of 2016, on the ground that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator to that extent was in violation of Section 29 (A) of the A & C Act, 1996.
::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:32:06 :::CIS...5...
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and .
have also gone through the record carefully.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the impugned common judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, in Arbitration Petition Nos. 8 of 2022 and 11 of 2022 is not sustainable as none of the parties had objected to the arbitration award on the ground that it was violative of Section 29 (A) of the A & C Act.
8. Learned District Judge, Mandi, has noticed the factual position that the Arbitration Petitions No. 990 of 2016 and 993 of 2016 were instituted on 09.11.2016 and the award was passed by learned Arbitrator on 29.06.2019. The appellants herein have not been able to displace such factual position. Rather, the record of the case substantiate the above factual aspect of the matter. It being so, it becomes evidently clear that the learned Arbitrator had entered upon the reference after coming into force of Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 and thus was amenable to the rigors of Section 29(A) of the A & C Act, 1996.
::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:32:06 :::CIS...6...
9. As per sub-section (4) of Section 29(A) of the A & C .
Act, the mandate of Arbitrator terminates on expiry of period of 12 months from the date the arbitral tribunals enters upon the reference or on expiry of further period of six months as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 29(A) of the A & C Act. Further period can be extended only by the Court in
10. to terms of sub-section (5) of Section 29(A) of the A & C Act.
In the instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the parties had expressly consented for the extension of period beyond 12 months. Even on assumption of such consent, the facts of the case cannot escape consequence of termination of the mandate of arbitral tribunal on expiry of extended period of six months. Learned Arbitrator has passed the award much after the expiry of period of 12 months and extended period of six months, without there being any extension order by the Court.
11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned common judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, requires no interference. The award dated 29.06.2019 passed by the learned Arbitrator suffered from patent illegality and has rightly been set aside by the learned District ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:32:06 :::CIS ...7...
Judge, Mandi, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of .
the A & C Act. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 13th June, 2023.
(jai)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:32:06 :::CIS