NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus SRI P. NAGARAJU @ CHELUVAIAH & ANR

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
v.
SRI P. NAGARAJU @ CHELUVAIAH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4671 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
National Highways Act – ss.3J, 3G (7) – Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.28(2), 31(3), 34, 37 – Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.26, 28 – Lands of claimants/
respondents were notified for acquisition under the preliminary
notification dtd.01.02.16 and 02.02.16 issued under NH Act –
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the
compensation at Rs.2026/- and Rs.17200/- per sq. mtr respectively
– Challenged by respondents, Arbitrator having taken into
consideration the method adopted by the SLAO while determining
the compensation, though adopted the same mode of determination
by reckoning the guideline value provided by the Department of
Stamps and Registration for the purpose of registration of sale
transactions, however took into consideration the subsequent
notifications dtd. 28.03.16 and 05.12.18 to reckon the guideline
value – Market value was determined at Rs.15,400/- per sq. mtr
and Rs.25,800/- per sq. mtr respectively and compensation was
awarded – Appellant aggrieved by the method adopted by the
Arbitrator in determining the market value and compensation filed
arbitration suit u/s. 34 of the Act, 1996, dismissed by District Judge
– Appeals also dismissed by High Court– Held: On facts, the reliance
placed on the guideline value notification dtd. 28.03.16 for
reckoning the market value of the property acquired under the
preliminary notification dtd. 01.02.16, by itself cannot be accepted
to be a patent illegality committed by the Arbitrator – However, the
manner in which the notification dtd. 28.03.16 was relied upon and
the value fixed under the said notification in respect of two distinct
layouts was automatically made applicable to the lands in question
despite noting the guideline value notified for the same survey
number would indicate that the said exercise was undertaken without
sufficient opportunity to NHAI – Further, appropriate reasons were
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 1070
1070
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
also not indicated by the Arbitrator to arrive at the conclusion to
uniformly adopt the value of Rs.15,400/- per sq.mtr fixed in respect
of lands in a layout which was separately indicated in the notification
– If there is evidence brought on record in the manner known to law
with opportunity to the opposite side, it certainly would be open for
the Arbitrator to adopt the said value – However, the pleadings in
the claim petition and the award indicate that the appellant did not
have sufficient opportunity before the Arbitrator to controvert the
material sought to be relied upon by the Arbitrator nor has the
Arbitrator indicated sufficient reasons which to that extent would
indicate patent illegality in the award passed by the Arbitrator being
contrary to ss.28(2) and 31(3) of Act, 1996 – That being the fact
situation and also the position of law being clear that it would not
be open for the court in the proceedings u/s.34 or in the appeal u/
s.37 to modify the award, the appropriate course to be adopted in
such event is to set aside the award and remit the matter to the
Arbitrator in terms of s.34(4) to keep in view these aspects of the
matter and even if the notification dtd. 28.03.16 relied upon is
justified as the same could be relied upon, the further aspects with
regard to the appropriate market value fixed under the said
notification for the lands which is the subject matter of the
acquisition or comparable lands is to be made based on appropriate
evidence available before it and on assigning reasons for the
conclusion to be reached by the Arbitrator – In C.A. No. 4681/
2022,arbitrator committed patent illegality in applying two different
notifications in determining the market value – Only course open is
to set aside the award and allow the Arbitrator to reconsider the
matter on that aspect – Impugned order set aside – Consequently,
the awards, connected awards which are the subject matter in these
appeals are also set aside – Arbitration proceedings remanded –
Stamp Act, 1899.
National Highways Act – ss.3J, 3G(7) – Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.26, 28 – Jurisdiction of arbitrator
determining the compensation under NH

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.