High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the District Judge, Mathura in Arbitration Case No.1/2022 and the arbitral award/order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the Arbitrator/Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Arbitration Petition No.1032/2014.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for widening of N.H.-2 (Six laning of Delhi-Agra Section) from Km. 20.500 to 200.00, acquiring of the land was initiated by the appellant in District- Faridabad, Palwal, Mathura and Agra, for which a notification under Section 3A was issued on 04.12.2009 and the declaration was made under Section 3D on 25.06.2010. Pursuant to the said acquiring proceedings, the land of the land owners bearing Khasra Nos.191 & 192 situated in revenue estate of village- Kota, Tehsil- Chhata, District- Mathura and notification in this regard was issued under Section 3A on 04.12.2009 and the declaration was made under Section 3D on 25.06.2010. Further, the land of the land owners bearing Khasra No. 265 was notified under Section 3A of the National Highways Authority of India Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") on 08.02.2011 and declaration was made under Section 3D on 31.05.2011 respectively. The land after being acquired, the competent authority after due process, granted compensation to the respondent no.1 treating the nature of land to be non-agricultural/Abadi land on the said date of notification under Section 3A of Act. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed a Petition No.1032 of 2014 under Section 3G(5) of Act before the Arbitrator and the same was decided by the Arbitrator vide arbitral award/order dated 31.05.2017. Being aggrieved by the said arbitral order, the appellant moved a Petition No.30 of 2017 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Mathura. The respondent no.1 also filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8347 of 2018 before this court challenging the award dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Arbitrator, which was allowed by this Court and the matter was remitted to the competent authority. Subsequently, in view of the order passed by this Court dated 05.03.2018, aforesaid petition No. 30 of 2017 was also dismissed as infructuous.

4. He further submits that instead of compliance of the order dated 05.03.2018, the Arbitrator vide order dated 31.08.2019, remanded the matter to the competent authority with certain directions. Again, the appellant, being aggrieved, challenged the order dated 31.08.2019 by filing Petition No.18/2019 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which which allowed vide order dated 30.01.2020 and the matter was remanded to the Arbitrator to determine the compensation. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16166 of 2021 before this Court for expediting the pending proceedings and this Court vide its order dated 29.07.2021 directed the Arbitrator to decide the matter expeditiously. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.07.2021, the Arbitrator vide order dated 04.10.2021 decided the arbitration case holding that the land acquired is a commercial land. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a Petition No.4 of 2022 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Mathura and the District Judge dismissed both the petitions and upheld the award/order dated 04.10.2021 and proceeded to determine the amount, which was beyond jurisdiction. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders and submits that the land in question was a commercial land as commercial activities were being undertaken in the vicinity of the land.

6. She further submits that the commercial educational institutions, hostels, nursing homes and other commercial activities were being undertaken, which has duly been recorded by the authorities, but neither the said fact has been challenged nor any material contrary to it, has been brought on record before the Court and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the orders impugned challenged in the present appeal.

7. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that counsel for the appellant has stated that the land in question has wrongly been treated as commercial without any basis. However, grounds no.I to XV have been taken wherein it has been alleged that the land in question is an agricultural land and therefore, the orders passed are bad.

9. Perusal of the orders impugned shows that not only the commercial educational institutions were there, but also private hostels, nursing homes and other commercial activities were found to be undertaken in the vicinity of the land in question, which itself shows that land in question is a commercial land. The said fact has not been challenged by the appellant in the instant appeal.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Anr. Vs. M/s Sanman Rice Mills & Ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2632 in para no.21 has held as under:- "21. It must also be remembered that proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary in nature and are not like a full-fledged regular civil suit. Therefore, the scope of Section 37 of the Act is much more summary in nature and not like an ordinary civil appeal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement."

11. In view of the above facts as stated above as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (supra), the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

12. Office is directed to return the lower court record. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the District Judge, Mathura in Arbitration Case No.1/2022 and the arbitral award/order dated 04.10.2021 passed by the Arbitrator/Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Arbitration Petition No.1032/2014.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that for widening of N.H.-2 (Six laning of Delhi-Agra Section) from Km. 20.500 to 200.00, acquiring of the land was initiated by the appellant in District- Faridabad, Palwal, Mathura and Agra, for which a notification under Section 3A was issued on 04.12.2009 and the declaration was made under Section 3D on 25.06.2010. Pursuant to the said acquiring proceedings, the land of the land owners bearing Khasra Nos.191 & 192 situated in revenue estate of village- Kota, Tehsil- Chhata, District- Mathura and notification in this regard was issued under Section 3A on 04.12.2009 and the declaration was made under Section 3D on 25.06.2010. Further, the land of the land owners bearing Khasra No. 265 was notified under Section 3A of the National Highways Authority of India Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") on 08.02.2011 and declaration was made under Section 3D on 31.05.2011 respectively. The land after being acquired, the competent authority after due process, granted compensation to the respondent no.1 treating the nature of land to be non-agricultural/Abadi land on the said date of notification under Section 3A of Act. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed a Petition No.1032 of 2014 under Section 3G(5) of Act before the Arbitrator and the same was decided by the Arbitrator vide arbitral award/order dated 31.05.2017. Being aggrieved by the said arbitral order, the appellant moved a Petition No.30 of 2017 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Mathura. The respondent no.1 also filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8347 of 2018 before this court challenging the award dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Arbitrator, which was allowed by this Court and the matter was remitted to the competent authority. Subsequently, in view of the order passed by this Court dated 05.03.2018, aforesaid petition No. 30 of 2017 was also dismissed as infructuous.

4. He further submits that instead of compliance of the order dated 05.03.2018, the Arbitrator vide order dated 31.08.2019, remanded the matter to the competent authority with certain directions. Again, the appellant, being aggrieved, challenged the order dated 31.08.2019 by filing Petition No.18/2019 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which which allowed vide order dated 30.01.2020 and the matter was remanded to the Arbitrator to determine the compensation. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16166 of 2021 before this Court for expediting the pending proceedings and this Court vide its order dated 29.07.2021 directed the Arbitrator to decide the matter expeditiously. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.07.2021, the Arbitrator vide order dated 04.10.2021 decided the arbitration case holding that the land acquired is a commercial land. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a Petition No.4 of 2022 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Mathura and the District Judge dismissed both the petitions and upheld the award/order dated 04.10.2021 and proceeded to determine the amount, which was beyond jurisdiction. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders and submits that the land in question was a commercial land as commercial activities were being undertaken in the vicinity of the land.

6. She further submits that the commercial educational institutions, hostels, nursing homes and other commercial activities were being undertaken, which has duly been recorded by the authorities, but neither the said fact has been challenged nor any material contrary to it, has been brought on record before the Court and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the orders impugned challenged in the present appeal.

7. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that counsel for the appellant has stated that the land in question has wrongly been treated as commercial without any basis. However, grounds no.I to XV have been taken wherein it has been alleged that the land in question is an agricultural land and therefore, the orders passed are bad.

9. Perusal of the orders impugned shows that not only the commercial educational institutions were there, but also private hostels, nursing homes and other commercial activities were found to be undertaken in the vicinity of the land in question, which itself shows that land in question is a commercial land. The said fact has not been challenged by the appellant in the instant appeal.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Anr. Vs. M/s Sanman Rice Mills & Ors.; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2632 in para no.21 has held as under:- "21. It must also be remembered that proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary in nature and are not like a full-fledged regular civil suit. Therefore, the scope of Section 37 of the Act is much more summary in nature and not like an ordinary civil appeal. The award as such cannot be touched unless it is contrary to the substantive provision of law; any provision of the Act or the terms of the agreement."

11. In view of the above facts as stated above as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (supra), the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

12. Office is directed to return the lower court record. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad