Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27589 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.28108 of 2024 (In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). The National Highways Authority of India (In Both the Writ Petitions) -versus- …. Petitioner(s) Nihar Ranjan Sahu & Ors. (In Both the Writ Petitions) …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Umesh Chandra Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Amit Prasad Bose,Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-19.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. Since both the Writ Petitions involve a common question of law and substantially similar facts, they are being heard and considered together. However, this Court feels it appropriate to treat W.P.(C) Page 1 of 24 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 No.27589 of 2024 as the leading case for proper adjudication of both the matters. 2. W.P.(C) No.27589 of 2024has been preferred by the Petitioner challenging the legality and validity of Arbitration Award passed in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.03/2019, NH-6 dated 26.12.2023 u/s 3-G(5) of the NH Act, 1956 passed by the Collector & Arbitrator, Keonjhar which directed the Tahasildar-Cum-CALA, NH-6, Patna now LAO & CA, NH-6, Keonjhar to recalculate the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.60,00,000/- per acre towards acquisition of Ac 1.17 dec of land pertaining to Plot No.289,290,297,299, 316, 287/528, 298/530, 311, 312, Khata No. 38/5, Kisam- Taila-I, Village Dumuriguda and to pay the differential compensation along with interest @ 9% over the said amount u/s 3-H(5) of the NH Act, 1956. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The facts giving rise to the present Petition can be pithily summarised as under: a. The present Petitioner is a statutory body established under the NHAI Act, 1988 being the Executing Agency on behalf of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. b. The present private Opposite Parties are the recorded tenants of the subject land. c. That, Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways vide Notification No. S.O. 2768(E) dated 14.9.2013 notified U/s 3-A of the N.H. Act 1956 to acquire the above Page 2 of 24 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 subject land amongst others, in Dumurigoda for expansion of N.H.6 from Km.342+900 to Km.356+400 (Baharagora- Sambatpur Section) in Keonjhar District. The Notification was published u/s 3-D of the N.H. Act 1956 on 10.9.2014. d. The Tahasildar-cum-Competent Authority, LA, N.H. 6 Project, Patna (hereinafter referred to as CALA) was appointed as the Competent Authority to acquire the land specified in the Schedule annexed to the said notification for building(widening/four-laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 6 e. The CALA conducted detailed survey and after physical verification of plot/area etc. issued notice in favour of the private Respondents to receive land acquisition compensation worth Rs.4,16,863/- as determined in LA Case No.9/4/2016. This amount was arrived at by CALA keeping in mind the bench mark valuation report of the Village Dumurigoda @Rs.1,15,000/- per acre as per the cut off date of 14.9.2013 (date of notification). Furthermore, no registered sale deed was available for the Gharabari Kisam in the village during 2011-2013 and therefore, the CALA proceeded on the basis of the available bench mark valuation only. f. Accordingly, CALA passed an award of Rs.4,16,863/- in favour of the private Respondents. This amount has admittedly been disbursed and received by the present Respondents. Page 3 of 24 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 g. Thereafter, the private Respondents filed Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.03/2019, NH-6 before the Collector, Keonjhar-Cum- Arbitrator, NH-6 Project, Keonjhar for redetermination of compensation. h. In Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.03/2019, notice was issued on 23.2.2019. The CALA was duly served and represented by the panel advocate. The defence statement as well as the written arguments were duly filed. i. Vide Arbitration Award passed in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.03/2019, NH-6 dated 26.12.2023 the CALA was directed to recalculate the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.60,00,000/- per acre towards acquisition of subject land and to pay the differential compensation alongwith interest @ 9% over the said amount. j. Accordingly, the CALA reassessed the amount and requested the Project Director, NHAI, Keonjhar for sanction of funds to satisfy the Arbitration Award passed in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No.03/2019, NH-6 dated 26.12.2023. 4. At this juncture, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition challenging the legality of the award seeking quashing of the same apart from a direction to re-hear the matter after making the Project Director, NHAI, Keonjhar a party. As the facts leading up to the instant Petition have been laid down, this Court shall endeavour to summarise the contentions of the Parties and the broad grounds that have been raised to seek the exercise of this Court’s writ jurisdiction. Page 4 of 24 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS: 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Arbitral Award is illegal and invalid as the NHAI being the Executing Agency was not impleaded as a Party, nor was the Central Government given an opportunity of hearing. 6. Furthermore, it is contended that impugned award does not satisfy Section 31 of the A&C Act and is therefore liable to be quashed. III. OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1’S SUBMISSIONS: 7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the private Opposite Party submits that the CALA was the Competent Authority empowered to conduct affairs on behalf of the Central Government. As such, the CALA was heard and the Arbitral Award was arrived at only after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties. In this view of the matter, the NHAI being the Executing Agency need not be separately impleaded as it has been duly represented by an authority acting as it’s agent. 8. Furthermore, it is submitted that the statutory scheme does not envision a scenario where the Central Government has to be heard separately from its Competent Authority, i.e. CALA. IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 9. Having heard the parties and perused the materials available on record, this court here has identified the following issues to be determined: Page 5 of 24 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 A. Whether this Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction in the realm of arbitral awards? B. Whether this Court ought to interfere in the facts of the present case? V. ISSUE A: WHETHER THIS COURT CAN EXERCISE ITS WRIT JURISDICTION IN THE REALM OF ARBITRAL AWARDS? 10. As to what would be the scope of interference under Article 226/227 against orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunals, a number of judgments have been cited by both parties, however, recent decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court have settled the issue. 11. While there is no doubt that the arbitral tribunal is a tribunal over which writ jurisdiction can be exercised, the said interference by a writ court is limited in nature. Recently, in Deep Industries Ltd. v. ONGC Ltd.1 decided on 28th November, 2019, the Supreme Court considered S.B.P. & Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd.2 and Fuerst Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited3 and observed as under: “17. This being the case, there is no doubt whatsoever that if petitions were to be filed Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution against orders passed in appeals Under Section 37, the entire arbitral process would be derailed and would not come to fruition for many years. At the same time, we cannot forget that Article 227 is a constitutional provision which remains untouched by the non-obstante Clause of Section 5 of the Act. In these