Karnataka High Court
H M Shankaramurthy vs National Highways Authority Of India on 9 June, 2010
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9'?" DAY OF JUNE, 2010
PRESENT
TI-IE I-IOIWBLE MRJUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA
AND
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUST1CENbANANDA*.: . '
Miscellaneous First.App<-zal
Between:
H M SHANKARAR/£E}R'FI~IY
s/0 LATE MUTIUSWAMY K.HAN.};)}_:R --.
AGED 57 YEARS.
OCC AGRICULTURE
R/O HULIYAR ROAD. HIRIYUR '- _ f
TALUK: HIRIYUR. = "
DIST: cHI'IRV,«xbU'1{s}§;:,
To
APPELLANT
1"-[BY SR1 C; 1?Tg;AcHVCH:fN.AMATH, ADV, FOR
' SR1 IG @.Ac§IcH.'INAMA'r:»1,Am/._}
NA'rIé)NA1; HIG£iw--AYs
V' ..AU"i7HORIi|Y"QF INDIA ""
. PROJ EC'? N! P LE M ENTATI O N U N IT.
L NEAR ,JM.1_'r; .N1<;_.4-- (KM 2013
"'C:»i15;T2ADU--:gcA.5:377 502
REP BY ITS P'ROJEC'I' DERECTOR
THE Coik/1p1:i'fr~::\n' AUTHORYIY FOR
'--LAz\1}:) ACQUISITION.
,,NA:if'IQN.A..{... HEGHWAYS AU'1'I~§ORI"E"Y OF INDEA.
= $521 RUDRA KRUPA
No;'_:0*75. OPP 'DO m co1..I.EGB.
BEHIND MM KRISHNA PETROL BUNK.
'V ~~-I~iADAD§ ROAD
DAVANAG ERE ~ 577 005
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
CHITRADURGA--577 Sm RE3SPONDEN'IS
THIS MFA FILED U/S 3"/'{I}[b] OF THE ARBI'I'RA'If1QE§E'~.._i'M\ED
CONCII-£A'E'ION ACT. AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:
PASSED IN ARBITRATION CASE{A}NO.80/200'? ON 'i'iSii~:--«.i'1_i4'i'1,1?;-.S(:):I'~*- "
PRINCEPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHI'I'RAD{}RGA, .AI;1;£iVs/ING "THE'
APPLICATION FILED U/S 34:2) OP'
CONCILIATION ACT. '10 SET ASIDE "ORb'i:fa' --._11'~I. "
NO.L./-kg/C.R/I06/2005-O6 DA'rEI):0S.1S5:2oo%*ANDVis'iS§;'.?.jaw. ' %
THIS APPSA1, COMING ON EOi{v..ADMISiSiION,_'A'1fI;iES DAY.
SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J., Di:i,iy"ERE1.j '1'Er£,E"F.QL_LOW1NG:
Junamiamj
ThiS 3'7[1}[b} of the
Arbitration 1996 by the land owner
whose iaijidsCVSij1'e."'t0Aiheietcquired for the Purpose of road
the of the Natiohal Highways Act,
1955 :[Vi'o_r Act}.
2g' It eippe27{rS4't.11e land acquisition officer had determined
,j.=.Vt.hefj»cA©ftipenVSation payable to the owner at RS.45/- per
V" ifasquaritg foot and the owner being aggrieved or not Satisfied
Awith this meager COIT1]i)€]'1SEU."i0I1, had Sought for 1"<-tference to
3
the Arbitrator in terms of sub~section{5] of section 3G of the
Act. Section 3G of the Act reads as under:
3G. Determination of amount payable.t...dgV":"~Q7:it
compensation»
{1} Where any land is acqitired...under V
there shall be paid an amount Ll}'hl:(j7Vll'b."$JY1_C_tli.VVx__h it
be determined by an "gorr_ler Qf"'i.hB' ~
cornpe tent attthortty. _'
{2} Where the right" of user"or'any rightin the
'nature of an easement ,'on,'-any land
acquired t1.i1der*.tjli'é.s Acid, :t:hi'e:ieV.sl1all be paid
an amount to thlee"own3er' artd"».a'n«y other
person toliose r.ig.ht"-.eoj'..enioynienlt "in that
land has been a_flected'~..i'ir:1_ any manner
wliatstjeuger _b_g 'reason s'ucir"acqiitsitcion
an a'n1oi.irt'i""calc'ul'agted_ per cent. of
the arr1o.r.::'ntc dzterfninedi under sub--section
n2. for' ti-1at<l_cufld«...
(3) V. _Befor'c _pro.ceeding'.to determine the amount
under subjsection {1} or sub-section (2). the
' conybeterit Vatlthority shall give a public
2 .notice"ptiblisl'1ed in two local newspapers,
one " wlticll will be in a vernacular
' larzfnzdge invi.ting claims from all persons
int=ere.sted in the land to be acquired.
{4} Silch notice shall state the particulars of
the land and shall require all persons
interested. in such land to appear in person
or by an agent or by a legal practitioner
referred to in sub~section {2} of section 3C,
before the competent authority. at a time
4
and place and to state the nature of their
respective interest in such land.
{5} U' the amount determined by the competent
authority under subssection {1} or sub--
section (2) is not acceptable to either of tt'ze"»__"* _
parties, the arnoimt shall, on 5
application by either of the parties,,""'be.,V"'
determined by the arbitrator .
appointed by the Central G.:)'iJer.r.c1yn1erit._, V
{6} Subject to the provisions this Act_,__ the; V' K
provisions of the' -.___Arbitr_a"iion
Conciliation Act, l996--v.,,,(25 of 1996,) L{shatl"'
apply to every arbiiirationiuiduer Act. 2
{7} The competent 'cnithorityior'=--the"arbitrator
while determining :.the'arriotint'~nnaei' Sub"
section {1} or sub~s.e:ct'io.r1':(5}.'7_as"the case
may be, 'sliall talceiinto cons_i'd,er*atior1 W
:*{_a) ._ « the,;narl§ei._:i5alue~l of the land on the
' « date"Q_1_i'~,pu.blica:iion of the notification
under sect'io'n. 3A;
{b} the damage, if any, sustained by the
V' person' lllll "interested at the time of
.g_t"al_cing possession of the land, by
" reasori of the severing of such land
' from other land;
2 '(cl ' the damage, g' any, sustained by the
l * person interested at the time of
taking possession of the land, by
reason of the acquisition iiyurioiisly
qfléCtiI'tg his other immovable
property in any manner. or his
earnings;
$/
5
{Ci} if, in consequences of the acquisition
of the land, the person interested is
compelled to change his residence or
piace of business, the reasonable "
expenses, if any, iricidentai to suc§'_t"-V_j"--«.V"'*
change. '
3. The Deputy Commissioner hav_i11g__loee.t1"
an Arbitrator for such purpose by
examined the matter and a11o'w_e'd..V'the"'thie = L'
appeilant -- land owner in its :e.ntirety<._VLAon.'eilhetneing the
Compensation amount foot awarded
by the Land Acquisition Oifi'icVe'1* square foot.
4. In beitween," _C}ain1ant -- owner had come
up with the tC«._'"a:'nend the claim petition for
enhancing -vthg corn/Densatyioni amount from not Rs.400/- per
originaiiy ciaimed before the
ArbAi"trat't__>r,1 W per square foot.
But t,__i'1is_"application had been rejected by the
';Af'bLi'tra_tor earlier and it was thereafter the owners eiaim
p_et_itior1" was aliowed in {L13} enhancing the quantum of
%/
6
compensation payable in respect of land acquired by the
authority from R345/~ to Rs.400/-- per square foot. M
6. It appears the land owner as well as "
Authorities both were aggrieved by ithle-.&
Arbitrator. Both had recourse to of
the Arbitration and Conciliatlio-nil'Act;.3 lithe it
Highway Authority ~ competent setting
aside the award on the grotinds the
owner though 34 of the
Arbitration and" rievertheless, sought
for enhanceine1"itblotconipensavtionl to IRs.i,OOO/~ per square
foot. _4 A A A 'p A A
7'.__ Thyegplearned Judge who acted as the Judge
to which such applications are to be
madle~.1in.dei*' of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, eirarriined both applications together and in' terms
-..oflth.,e"impugned order and award, while rightly rejected the
filed by the present appellant -~ land owner under
34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation. Act, 1996 as
7
not tenable. partly allowed the application filed by the
competent authority by setting aside the award
the Al'bll.l'€itOI', but, nevertheless, lemanded the _
Arbitrator for a fresh consideration of the V
competent authority filed under section 34
and Conciliation Act, 1996.
8. It is against this common orderflanwd lthefgpresent
appeal and in this ap13eal----.__tlf.e c_l1a.--lle.ng_e._.i's.confined to the
order in so far as it relatesA.to.'th.e appellant's
application bef"o'ré.,V Di.striletll"Jtl1dge acting as a
court.
9. We haV'f: 4' heard' Gachchinarnath. learned
counsel forthe appellant land owner.
jvlltiachchinamatli. learned counsel for the
appe"l1_an_tyyehernehtiy contends that the court should have
evnhanced co'n1pensat.ion from RS.4l~00/W per square foot to
scltlare foot as sought for by the appellant,
particularly, as the value of the land in the Vicinity is in...that
range etc... i
11. It is not necessary for us t.o go into question H
by learned Counsel for the appellantfor"'thyeisirnole._reason";
that the order passed by the learned:"lJiidge
Court to reject the appellants 34
of the Arbitration and Coneili'ation'Aie.t;.' not suffer
from any infirmity much less any
12. A reading-' bf K34 thew Arbitration and
Conciliation?' that it is a provision
to enable a""pe1'son the award to seek for
setting aside. the any one or the other of the
indicated in subsection [2] of
'v-of--«._tiiev~firbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
V V reading as u..__nde1":
A Application for setting aside arbitral
award:-
V' An arbitral award may be set aside by the
Court only if --
fig!/it
(a)
the party making the application furnishes
proof that ~
(1')
{ii}
{iii}
a party was under some incapacity»,_:"-.._»¥
Or
the arbitration agreement is r1ot"'t1aliid". in
under the law to which tI1e."p'ciriies"' V' .
have subjected it :or, 'fCIL'ttr_t1gI' «a_ngV._ " V
indication thereon, Lirldefthe for
the time being in.jorcej'or"~._
the party making_ "the ap'plicat'ionA
not given proper notice. the
appoiritment of an. arbitrator or .of the
arbitral pr__ooeed_'ings "or was otherwise
unable to ;5re.sent__h':is7 _
the §'arbitrai aiiiard deals with a
' d£spiite'--V.. no't{'f--:::on.temjotated by or not
';~fai£ii.ig within. ~ the terms of the
- t.,-sjtibrz1iffs's;io'r:.Q to arbitration, or it
._ -- co1--i.tains di:{cision.s on matters beyond
. the the submission to
-' arbii'rat;Ton_{
~ .._JProoided that, if the decisions on
matters'"subn1itted to arbitration can
. «gbe separated jrom those not so
* stib.:71it'ted,
-- ._ atrbitral
";;iecisior'is on n1att'ers not submitted to
.' arbitration may be set aside; or
of the
contains
that part
which
only
award
the cornposit'ion of the arbiiral tribiinai
or the arbitrat procedure was not in
accordance with the agreement of the
parties. unless such agreement was
in conflict with a provision of this Part
from which the parties cannot
1.0 derogate, or. 'failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part:
or
(b) the Court finds that -
(i) the sulgject- matter of the cttsputeh; riot.
capable of set'tlemer_fzt..b_y arb'itfat'toh"' V under the law for the time "«beir"ng__V try. ' force, or ' {ii} the arbttral ClLI)t1t;Ct....iS tit conJ_Zte,t the public policy cflftftdta. ' V I ' Explanation -- W_tthout_ viprgiadtce to the generatity of' S[tl3~ClCtltS€3 }(iz'j,-- its hereby declared, jor the a:g_ooitartce--'«.oj'--ant} doubt, that an award is "zi:1,cor'1fl,_tc_t wttit the public policy goftrtdta t;1'aev~"n1'a.k"trig.off the award was im;;tx§t(_:_efr1l'v Q3: affected by fraud or corriLpt'io}1. or"was¥.'tvn 'o--iotat;r'ot't of Section 75 ortfieeticirtttzftl i i "
13. A provision»toi"'sei;ti'11.g"aside an award contending that the awaqid '' is 11otf"s_tistainab1e in law on any one of the grounds asAir.1d4izC~a.Vted above can never be construed as a provisio'r1vteii2:I5ii.t1g,"the land owner seeking for enhanctement of-- the ""(:orn.pe'14isation amotmt as determined by the v"lThe learned Judge of the I)1'str1'ct Court: has tetected the application under section 34 of the n V AAurw!oit1""atio11 and Conci1iatior1 Act, 1996. The application itself 11 Was not tenable. The appeal also is equally not tenable a1'1_d__ even otherwise without any merit.
14. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
7 AN/- ....