Gopal Goyal v. Project Director, Indian Highway Authority & Anr.), whereby the Appellate Court w

Judgment

1. Project Director, Indian Highway Authority Project Impementation Unit-2, Indra Colony, Opp. Roadways Bus Depot, Dausa.

2. Competent Authority And Land Acquisation Office, Ex- Officio, Sub-Divisional Officer, Baseri, Ex-Officio, Sub- Divisional Officer, Baseri, District Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Agarwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 21/04/2025 Order

1. The appellant/applicant by filing instant misc. appeal under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

(for short ‘the Act of 1996’) has challenged the judgment dated

23.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Dholpur (Raj.) (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) in Civil Misc. Case No.07/2018 (Gopal Goyal Vs. Project Director, Indian Highway Authority & Anr.), whereby the Appellate Court while dismissing the misc. case filed by the appellant/applicant, has confirmed the judgment dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Court of learned Arbitrator (District Collector), Dholpur (Rajasthan) (for short ‘the Trial Court) in Appeal No.43/2016. [2025:RJ-JP:16844] (2 of 9) [CMA-1561/2025]

2. The facts of the case emerge from the pleadings are that the appellant/applicant purchased part of the agricultural land in Khasra Nos.841 and 851, situated at Village Piprath, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur from the land owners by way of registered sale deed dated 24.04.2009 for the purposes of business and construction of house and upon the said sale deed, the Khasra numbers were divided as Khasra No.841/2 & 851/2, measuring

0.22 Hectare and 0.18 Hectare, respectively. At the time of the purchase, there were some houses constructed in these Khasra numbers and the land was being utilized for residential and commercial purposes. The appellant/applicant was thus recorded Khatedar cultivator. The appellant/applicant submitted the file for conversion of the above land into non-agricultural purposes (residential and commercial both) in the Tehsil, whereupon, he was told that since the land is being acquired by the Government for widening of the National Highway, hence it cannot be converted. Thereafter, the appellant/applicant enquired about it and found that notification for acquiring lands under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956(for short ‘the Act of 1956’) has since been published on 19.12.2012 and an award in the sum of Rs.4,72,826.8 Lacs has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, whereupon, the appellant/applicant filed an application before the said Officer for modification of the award, which was summarily rejected.

3. The appellant/applicant aggrieved with the decision made on the application, filed an application under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.08.2016. [2025:RJ-JP:16844] (3 of 9) [CMA-1561/2025]

4. The appellant/applicant aggrieved with the judgment dated 04.08.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court, preferred the misc. case before the learned Appellate Court by filing an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.12.2024. Hence, this misc. appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant submits that the decision and the award passed by the Courts below are against the material and record available on the file of the Court and are as such liable to be interfered with and set aside. Counsel further submits that the learned Arbitrator has failed to appreciate the averments, the documents and pleadings of the counsel for the applicant in the arbitral application and has erred in ignoring the same. The fact of filing the application for conversion of the land into commercial and residential one, has neither been controverted nor any evidence of the Tehsildar, Baseri has been adduced by the non-applicants. Learned counsel also submits that mere saying that the compensation has been awarded as per the category of the land of the applicant as maintained in the records of the Revenue Department, is not enough in view of the provisions of the Act of 2013. The very fact and situation of the land and its factual use and/or purpose has to be taken into consideration while actual calculation and market price of the acquired land was to be given to the land owners, as per dictates of the Act of 2013 and Rules of 2015 as the said Act is a beneficial legislation and the priority is of the land holders and not of the Government or other organization. Counsel further submits that the determination of market value of the land [2025:RJ-JP:16844] (4 of 9) [CMA-1561/2025] acquired, as contained in Section 26 of the Act of 2013, has not been followed, wherein, it is specifically mentioned that 26(a) and 26(b) in its letter and spirits-”No registered sale deeds of adjoining agricultural lands have been collected and in the absence of such lapse on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer, is hit by the provisions of the Act of 2013”. Learned counsel also submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh V/s State of Punjab 1994 DNJ SC P.180, has observed that the compensation of the acquired land be given at the maximum market rate available of the land surrounding and the acquired ones. Learned counsel further submits that the enhanced compensation as demanded by the applicant has been ignored altogether. The applicant's demand of compensation should have been analyzed and examined by spot verification by the Land Acquisition Officer, who has failed to discharge his duties cast on him. Averments made in paras Nos. 8 and 9 of the application have to be verified by the Land Acquisition Officer who has not cared at all to verify the same. Learned counsel further submits that awarding meagre amount of compensation to the appellant- land holder, is nothing but against the policy of the Government. Unfair and unreasonable amount of compensation given by the Land Acquision Officer is clearly opposed to the Public Policy. It is also submitted that the appellant/applicant accepted the amount of compensation under protest, which clearly shows that he was not satisfied with the meager amount of compensation in lieu of his land being acquired and the order of 2015 dictates 100% compensation at par with the market value of the land under [2025:RJ-JP:16844] (5 of 9) [CMA-1561/2025] acquisition. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Appellate Court has also erred in not appreciating fully the averments, plea and ruling cited by the counsel for the appellant in broader prospective.

7. Heard. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.

8. The grounds for challenge to award of the arbitrator are given under section 34 of the Act of 1996, which are quoted as under:- “34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. —(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if— (a) the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that— (i) a party was under some incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration: [2025:RJ-JP:16844] (6 of 9) [CMA-1561/2025] Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral 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 derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or (b) the Court finds that— (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. Explanation 1.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,— (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or (ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. Explanation 2.—For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute. (2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award: Provided that an award shall not be set [2025:RJ-JP:16844] (7 of 9) [CMA-1561/2025] aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence. (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. (4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Court may, where it is appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. (5) An application under this section shall be filed by a party only after issuing a prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement. (6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in sub-section (5) is served upon the other party.

9. Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned courts below have not taken into consideration the material fact and submissions that the Arbitrator award is contrary to the Public Policy; for the reason that though the land acquired was recorded [2025:RJ-JP:16844] (8 of 9) [CMA-1561/2025] as an agricultural land in the revenue records, however, already an application for conversion was submitted which was pending before the authorities and there was a residential accommodation on the land acquired and therefore, the compensation was to be calculated treating the land to be the residential premises. The aforesaid submission and issue raised by the counsel for the appellant has been dealt with by the courts below and has given the detailed findings and reasoning. The land at the time of the acquisition was recorded as an agricultural land in the revenue records and the same was never converted as a commercial or residential land. The compensation has been calculated having considered the land to be the agricultural land, as has been recorded in the revenue records.

10. The provisions as regards the determination of amount of compensation, parameters to be considered by Collector in determination of award and determination of value of things attached to land or building are given in sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act of 2013’). The appellant is claiming the compensation treating his acquired land to be commercial or residential, whereas the land is recorded as an agricultural land in the revenue records and there is no pacca house constructed over the land. The courts below have rightly considered the plea of the appellant and has given the detailed findings and observations and this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the findings given by the courts below.

11. On perusal of the provisions of section 34 of the Act of 1996 and considering the submissions made by the counsel for [2025:RJ-JP:16844] (9 of 9) [CMA-1561/2025] the appellant on the basis of the facts available on the record, this Court also finds no ground available to the appellant to set aside the award passed by the Arbitrator. In view of the provisions of the Act of 2013, the appellant is entitled to compensation on the basis of the value of his acquired land, as its category in the revenue records is agricultural land at the time of acquisition. There is no violation of the Public Policy.

12. Hence, the misc. appeal filed by the appellant is having no merit and accordingly stands dismissed.

13. In view of the judgment passed in the main appeal, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand dismissed. SHARMA N.K., DY. REGISTRAR /10 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J