Balu Lingappa Chandanshive v. The Project Director NHAuthority Of India) connected matters & Ors.

Arb. Appeal No. 124/25 & Anr.1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD912 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2025SARASWATI BHAGVAT NEPATEVERSUSTHE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY ARUTHORITY OFINDIA AND OTHERS...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Thigale Girish KalidasraoAdvocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. S.P. UrgundeAdvocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. S.W. Munde...913 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2025SARASWATI BHAGWAT NEPATEVERSUSTHE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY ARUTHORITY OFINDIA AND OTHERS...Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Thigale Girish KalidasraoAdvocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. S.P. UrgundeAdvocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. R.B. Bagul...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.Dated:April 24, 2026PER COURT :-1.Heard.2. The appellants challenge the impugned Awards passed by theArbitrator, so also, the impugned Orders passed by the Principal DistrictJudge, Osmanabad dismissing the Applications under Section 34 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.3.This Court by order dated 24th March 2026 in Arbitration Appeal Arb. Appeal No. 124/25 & Anr.2No. 38/2025 (Balu Lingappa Chandanshive Vs. The Project Director NHAuthority Of India and Others) and other connected matters has decidedthe matters covering the acquisition of lands from village Tadavala, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad for widening of National HighwayNo. 361. The instant cases also relate to the acquisition of the lands fromthe same village i.e. Tadavala, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad forwidening of National Highway No. 361. 2.The learned counsel for the respondent/NHAI has not able to pointout any distinguishing feature in the present case. However, the learnedcounsel for NHAI has submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'bleSupreme Court in the case of Associate Builders vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority reported in MANU/SC/1076/2014, power of this Court isextremely restricted and only in case of patent illegality the impugnedaward can be interfered. 3.However, in the case of Balu Lingappa Chandanshive cited supra, this court has observed that arbitrator has committed patent illegality ingranting different compensation to similarly placed lands and this wouldfall within sub-section 2(A) of section 34 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act. As such, in the present case, the learned counsel for therespondent/NHAI has failed to make out any distinction from the case ofBaluppa Chandanshive cited supra. 4.Accordingly, the arbitration appeals are allowed. The impugned Arb. Appeal No. 124/25 & Anr.3orders are quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted to thearbitrator, to be determined within four months. All contentions are keptopen. ( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )ssc/