Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals are that lands belonging to the land owners in the present appeals located in village Kapsi (Khurd), District Nagpur, were sought to be acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (i.e. "acquiring body") under the provisions of the Act of 1956. Notification dated 21/09/2009 was issued under Section 3-A of the Act of 1956, expressing the intention of acquiring the lands of the land owners. On 13/10/2010, a Notification was issued under Section 3-D of the said Act of 1956, pertaining to declaration of acquisition. On KOLHE 3 / 27 CORRECTED-Arbitration Appeal Nos.28.2019 +3.odt 08/12/2010, public notices were issued under Section 3- G(3) and (4) of the said Act of 1956, to interested persons. Thereafter, on 31/10/2012, the Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority issued an Award, determining the compensation payable to the land owners.

(4) The acquiring body preferred applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Court, Nagpur, in view of Section 3-G(6) of the Act of 1956, which states that the provisions of the Arbitration Act shall apply to every arbitration under the aforesaid Act of 1956. By judgments and orders dated 05/04/2019, the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, confirmed the quantum of compensation granted by the Arbitrator, holding that the Awards did KOLHE 4 / 27 CORRECTED-Arbitration Appeal Nos.28.2019 +3.odt not deserve to be set aside. Instead the said Court modified the Award by directing payment of amount of solatium of 30%, while deducting the grant of 10% amount for loss of easementary rights under Section 3- G(2) of the Act of 1956. The Court further directed payment of interest @12% p.a. as per Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and further granted interest @9% p.a. in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("Land Acquisition Act") (5) It is relevant to mention here that the land owners did not file applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, but instead preferred applications under Order 41 Rule 22 r/w Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically claiming that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Right to Fair Compensation Act") ought to be applied for determination of compensation payable to them.

(15) Therefore, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the acquiring body that the District Court could not have modified the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. But, it needs to be examined as to whether the operative portion of the impugned Judgments and Orders passed by the District Court actually modifies the Award or not. This is in the backdrop of the contention raised on behalf of the land owners that when the District Court, while exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, has only KOLHE 12 / 27 CORRECTED-Arbitration Appeal Nos.28.2019 +3.odt recognized and granted statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which flow from grant of compensation, it cannot be said that the Award has been modified by the District Court. In fact, it is contended that the only modification in the Award is deprivation of 10% of compensation under Section 3- G(2) of the Act of 1956, as granted under the Award and that therefore, only the said portion needs to be set aside as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid recent judgment in the case of The Project Director, NHAI vs. M.Hakeem (supra).

"ORDER [1] The application is rejected with no order as to costs.
[2] The award is thus not set aside as prayed for by the applicants, but it is modified as under:
KOLHE

13 / 27 CORRECTED-Arbitration Appeal Nos.28.2019 +3.odt [i] The applicants are directed to pay the non-applicant Nos.3 & 4 the amount granted to them by the Arbitrator's award and in addition to it, 30% of the amount of the award as solatium as per the Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act after deducting the 10% of the amount granted for the loss of easements right as per Section 3-G of the Highways Act.