in the high court of karnataka circuit bench at...

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

MFA NO.21806/2012 (AA)C/W MFA NOS.21807, 21808, 21809, 21810, 21811, 21812,

21813, 21814, 21815 & 21816 OF 2012

MFA NO.21806/2012:

BETWEEN:

NINGANAGOUDAS/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL & OTHERS,LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHIVANAGOUDA,S/O NINGANAGOUDA PATILAGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM

…APPELLANT[BY SHRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE &SHRI RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVS.]

AND:

1. THE MANAGER, TECHNICAL &COMPTENT AUTHORITY,FOR LAND ACQUISITION,NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,SATTUR COLONY, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD.

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,LAQ. R&R, MAJOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS,BELGAUM AND ARBITRATORFOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYAUTHORITY OF INDIA, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT. P.R.BENTUR & H.R.BENTUR, ADVS. FOR R1]

: 2 :

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILEDUNDER SECTION 37(1)(B) OF ARBITRATION ANDCONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ANDAWARD DATED 22.10.2011 PASSED IN ARBITRATIONCASE NO.4/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPALDISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, REJECTING THE PETITIONFILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION ANDCONCILIATION ACT.

MFA NO.21807/2012:

BETWEEN:

BABU S/O MALLAPPA YAMMINAKATTI,AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT

[BY SHRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE &SHRI RAJENDRA R. PATIL, ADVS.]

AND:




THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILEDUNDER SECTION 37(1)(B) OF ARBITRATION ANDCONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ANDAWARD DATED 22.10.2011 PASSED IN ARBITRATION

: 3 :

CASE NO.5/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPALDISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, REJECTING THE PETITIONFILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION ANDCONCILIATION ACT.

MFA NO.21808/2012:

BETWEEN:

BASAPPA S/O IRAPPA PISHANNAVAR,AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:




THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILEDUNDER SECTION 37(1)(B) OF ARBITRATION ANDCONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ANDAWARD DATED 22.10.2011 PASSED IN ARBITRATIONCASE NO.6/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPALDISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, REJECTING THE PETITIONFILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION ANDCONCILIATION ACT.

: 4 :

MFA NO.21809/2012:

BETWEEN:

SRI. PRAKASH S/O VEERAPPA JAPATIAGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:




THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED

UNDER SECTION 37(1)(B) OF ARBITRATION AND

CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND

AWARD DATED 22.10.2011 PASSED IN ARBITRATION

CASE NO.7/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, REJECTING THE PETITION

FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION AND

CONCILIATION ACT.

: 5 :

MFA NO.21810/2012:

BETWEEN:

GANGAPPA S/O BASAPPA AMBADAGATTIAGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:











CONCILIATION ACT.

: 6 :

MFA NO.21811/2012:

BETWEEN:

MOTAPPA URF DUNDAPPAS/O BASALINGAPPA ROTTIAGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:











CONCILIATION ACT.

: 7 :

MFA NO.21812/2012:

BETWEEN:

YALLAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA SHINTRIAGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:











CONCILIATION ACT.

: 8 :

MFA NO.21813/2012:

BETWEEN:

SRI. NAGANAGOUDAS/O BASANAGOUDA HADIMANIAGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:











CONCILIATION ACT.

: 9 :

MFA NO.21814/2012:

BETWEEN:

SRI. BASAPPA S/O RUDRAPPA SHINTRIAGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:











CONCILIATION ACT.

: 10 :

MFA NO.21815/2012:

BETWEEN:

FADIGOUDAS/O SANGANAGOUDA PATIL & OTHERSHEIRS OF LATE SANGANAGOUDAS/O NINGANAGOUDA PATIL,AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:










: 11 :


CONCILIATION ACT.

MFA NO.21816/2012:

BETWEEN:

IMAM HUSSAIN S/O NABISA NADAFAGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,R/O: HIREBAGEWADI,TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT


AND:










: 12 :


CONCILIATION ACT.

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS

COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -

JUDGMENT

These appeals are by the claimants questioning

the correctness and legality of the judgment passed by

the District Judge, Belgaum, in Arbitration Case Nos.4,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 of 2011 dated

22.10.2011, whereunder the awards passed by the 2nd

respondent herein and petition filed under Section 34 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter

referred to Act for the sake of brevity) challenging the

said awards came to be affirmed.

2. This Court by order dated 13.12.2012

condoned the delay and matter was listed for admission

on 10.01.2013 and at the request of learned Advocates,

matter was listed for today. By consent, it is taken up

for final disposal.

: 13 :

3. The grounds urged, pleas advanced and

arguments canvassed in these appeals are identical and

as such, these appeals are disposed of by this common

order.

4. I have heard the arguments of Shri Srinand

A. Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing along with

Rajendra R. Patil for appellants and Smt. P.R.Bentur,

learned counsel appearing for R1. Notice to R2 has

been dispensed with by order dated 27.11.2012, at the

risk of the appellant. The contentions raised by the

learned counsel appearing for the appellants are as

under: -

i) The trial Court has remanded the

matter to the 2nd respondent to

determine the market value of the

property, as per Section 3-G(7) of the

National Highways Act (Amendment),

1956, in as much as the said provision

had not been taken into consideration

by 2nd respondent while determining

the compensation and even in present

appeals same factual matrix appears.

: 14 :

ii) There is no proper determination of the

market value of the acquired land and

the Arbitrator as well as the Court

below has not taken into consideration

the registered sale deed produced by

the appellants in support of their

contention seeking for enhancement of

compensation which related to an

abutting land, the potentiality of which

land was same as that of the lands

acquired.

iii) In identical circumstances, the very

same Court itself had accepted similar

contentions raised by the claimants

and as such, it has remanded the

matter back to the 2nd respondent for

computation or re-determination of

compensation and same has not been

followed in the present appeals and as

such, compensation has to be re-

determined.

5. On these grounds, the learned counsel for

the appellants seeks for setting aside the judgment and

award passed by the 2nd respondent which has been

affirmed by the trial Court and prays for allowing the

: 15 :

appeal and awarding the compensation @ of

Rs.19,000/- per gunta, which was the market value

prevailing as on 14.08.2000 or in the alternate, he prays

for appeals being remanded to the 2nd respondent for

adjudication afresh, so that the claimants would have

ample opportunity to produce all other materials to

establish their claim and also substantiate their claim

for grant of award of compensation @ of Rs.19,000/- per

gunta.

6. Per contra Smt. P.R.Bentur, learned counsel

appearing for the 1st respondent would support the

judgment and award passed by the tribunal and she

would submit that trial Court has taken into

consideration as to how the sale deed relied upon by the

claimants could not have been taken as an yardstick to

determine the compensation in so far as the lands

belonging to the appellants/claimants acquired herein

are concerned, would also attract the same price. She

would also submit that the trial Court has taken note of

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

: 16 :

M.P.HOUSING BOARD VS. PROGRESSIVE WRITERS AND

PUBLISHERS reported in 2009 (SCCR) 787 and the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

H.M.SHANKARMURTHY VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2010

Kar 3711, to arrive at a conclusion that an award

passed can only be set aside on anyone of the grounds

as indicated in Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996

and contends that there is no error committed by the

trial Court either on facts or on law calling for

interference at the hands of this Court and as such, she

prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

has made available a chart which depicts the details of

claim made in each of the appeals and this fact having

not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for

respondent, same is extracted herein below.

Case No. R.S.No. Measurement/Extent

Award Enhancedby 50%

weightageof Award

Nature ofthe Land

MFA21806/12

415 (1/2share)

4,453 Sq. Mts.(44.08 guntas)

2,21,536/- 3,32,304/- AgriculturalLand

: 17 :

MFA21807/12

408 1,239 Sq. Mts.(12.26 guntas)

61,640/- 92,460/- AgriculturalLand

MFA21808/12

225/2(1/2

Share)

1,011 Sq. Mts.(10 guntas)

3,39,664/- Nil(Dismissed)

N/A Land

MFA21809/12

360 2,984 Sq. Mts.(29.54 guntas)

92,504/- 1,38,756/- AgriculturalLand

MFA21810/12

320/01 505 Sq. Mts. (5guntas)


463/03&

800 Sq. Mts.(7.92 guntas)

39,800/- 59,700/-MFA

21811/12

464/2 2470 Sq. Mts.(24.45 guntas)

1,22,882/- 1,84,323/-

Agricultural

Land

MFA21812/12

363/05(1/2

Share)

1,769 Sq. Mts.(17.51 guntas)


MFA21813/12

358/05 354 Sq. Mts.(3.5 guntas)


MFA21814/12

363/05 1,769 Sq. Mts.(17.51 guntas)


MFA21815/12

415 (1/2Share)

4,453 Sq. Mts.(44.08 guntas)


MFA21816/12

463/02 360 Sq. Mts.(3.56 guntas)


8. Having heard the learned Advocates

appearing for the parties and on perusal of the

judgment passed by the trial Court and also the award

passed by the 2nd respondent, I am of the considered

view that following points would arise for my

consideration.

: 18 :

“i) Whether the awards passed by the 2nd

respondent suffers from any patent

errors which called for interference at

the hands of the trial Court in exercise

of its appellate power under Section 34

of the Act and same having not been

exercised should it be exercised by this

Court?

ii) If not, whether the trial Court was

justified in not interfering with the

award passed by 2nd respondent and

whether it was justified on facts and

also on law in affirming the said

awards and dismissing the petitions

filed under Section 34?

iii) What order?”

BRIEF BACKGROUNDS:

9. Appellants were the claimants before the 2nd

respondent. In view of a preliminary notification issued

under Section 3–A(1) of the National Highways

(Amendment) Act, 1997, published in the Gazette of

India dated 10.07.2001 for formation of 4–6 lane

National Highway, the lands of the claimants came to be

: 19 :

acquired by the National Highway Authority of India.

Pursuant to the said acquisition, awards came to be

passed by the Competent Authority and compensation

as enumerated in column No.4 of the table extracted

herein above, came to be awarded in favour of each of

the claimants.

10. Not being satisfied with the compensation

awarded, appellants/claimants filed an application

under Section 3-G of the National Highways

(Amendment) Act, 1997, before the 2nd respondent

herein, contending that the award passed by the

Competent Authority is on the lower side, not

commensurate with the prevailing market value of the

land amongst other grounds. The 2nd respondent after

recording the evidence produced by both the parties and

after affording opportunities of granting a personal

hearing to all the parties, an order came to be passed on

05.02.2011, 29.01.2011, 29.01.2011, 29.01.2011,

29.01.2011, 29.01.2011, 29.01.2011, 29.01.2011,

29.01.2011, 05.02.2011 and 29.01.2011 respectively

: 20 :

and enhanced the compensation by 50% weightage as

enumerated in column No.5 of the table extracted

herein above.

11. It is to be noticed at this juncture itself that

in so far as M.F.A. No.21805/2012 is concerned, appeal

filed by the claimant came to be rejected by taking note

of the fact that the land acquired and compensation

determined was by a consent award and the

compensation that had been awarded by the 2nd

respondent did not call for interference.

12. Aggrieved by these orders passed by the 2nd

respondent, claimants filed a petition under Section 34

of the Act, 1996, and sought for enhancement of

compensation by reiterating their contentions raised by

them before the 2nd respondent. Trial Court having

noticed the contentions raised which are identical and

similar contentions now raised in the present appeals

held that the claimants do not satisfy the ingredients of

Section 34(2) of the Act to entertain their claim and even

: 21 :

otherwise on merits it was noticed that full opportunity

was extended and utilised by the claimants before the

Competent Authority as well as before the 2nd

respondent herein. It also held that 2nd respondent has

taken note of the average market value of the lands for

the year 2001-02, in respect of different classes of

lands, their situation and potentialities of the lands

located in adjoining villages would be applicable or not,

as also the sale deed produced by the claimants on the

basis of which it was contended that market value as

found in the sale deed as 14.08.2000 should be the

yardstick and found that it is not having same

potentiality and it is sale of a plot and concluded that

awards in question not being opposed to public policy

by relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex

Court as well as Division Bench of this Court referred to

supra to reject said contentions and affirmed the orders

passed by 2nd respondent. These facts are not in

dispute. In this background, now, let me consider the

points formulated herein above: -

: 22 :

RE. POINT NO.1 & 2:

13. These two points being inter-linked with

each other and discussion on these two points are likely

to overlap with each other, they are taken up together

for adjudication.

14. At the outset, it can be noticed that the

Competent Authorities under the National Highways

(Amendment) Act, on acquiring the land have

determined the compensation payable to each of the

land holders whose land came to be acquired by

awarding compensation. The average amount

determined to each of the land holders is around

Rs.5,025.77 per gunta. Being aggrieved by the said

determination of compensation and not being satisfied

with the market value so determined, it came to be

challenged by them under Section 3-G(5) of the National

Highways Act, 1956, before the Special Deputy

Commissioner i.e., 2nd respondent herein, contending

inter alia that transaction and surrounding development

costs Rs.10,000/-, total Rs.29,000/- per gunta is to be

: 23 :

given and the market value has to be determined

accordingly. 2nd respondent after considering the

evidence tendered by both the parties and after hearing

the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on

perusal of the entire material available on record,

opined as under: -

Here the point which needs to be noted

is that the average market value for the

lands located near a village and lands

located on the National Highway cannot be

the same. The government through the Sub-

Register has prescribed that additional 50%

weightage needs to be given to the lands

which are abutting the National Highway.

This however has not been taken into

cognizance of by the Competent Authority,

NHAI. As regarding considering the average

market value of the other villages, The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1999 SC 317

has held that “Situation and potentialities

of lands in adjoining villages are different

and the same cannot be relied upon.” It is

seen that different villages lie at different

distance and have different potentialities and

therefore the rates of lands in the village in

: 24 :

question cannot be made same. The

advocate for petitioner has requested to

consider sale deed Sy. No.220/6 extent 101

Sqm. Dated 14.08.2000 of Hirebagewadi,

registered for Rs.19,000/ gunta to fix the

value of suit property. On perusal of the

village map of Hirebagewadi village the suit

properties are located near Siddanavabi and

are abutting siddanabavi. Where as Sy.

No.220 is nearer to Hirebagewadi village and

as the registered property and suit

properties lie at different distance and have

different potentialities. I disagree to equate

the same value to the lands acquired by the

“NHAI”.

15. However, the claim petitions came to be

allowed in part by awarding additional 50%

compensation for the lands acquired and interest of 9%

per annum was also ordered to be paid on the

additional award amount. A perusal of the said order

would clearly indicate that 2nd respondent has taken

into consideration, as to how the sale deed dated

14.08.2000 relied upon by the claimants cannot form

: 25 :

the basis or foundation for applying the same to the

lands of the appellants for acquired determination of

compensation. The reasons given by the 2nd

respondent, as extracted herein supra, would clearly

indicate that these two lands are different and

independent and the said sale deed relied upon by the

claimants cannot be used as an yardstick for the

purposes of determination of compensation in respect of

the lands belonging to the claimants/appellants

acquired. The said finding arrived at by the 2nd

respondent which is based on proper evaluation of the

materials and also evidence tendered by the parties

cannot be construed as suffering from any infirmities

either on facts or on law.

16. Reiterating the said contentions, petition

under Section 34 of the Act came to be filed before the

District Judge inter alia contending that awards passed

are erroneous, compensation awarded by the Competent

Authority is on lower side and enhanced by the

Arbitrator are not inconsonance with the material

: 26 :

evidence placed on record and as such, it requires to be

enhanced. While considering the said contentions, trial

Court examined the scope and power of Section 34 of

the Arbitration Act, 1996 and by taking note of the

contours defined by the Apex Court as well as by the

Division Bench of this Court in the judgments referred

to supra rejected the petition. Though said judgments

have been noticed by the trial Court at the cost of

repetition, the same requires to be noticed by this

Court, since learned counsel appearing for the

claimants has also reiterated the contentions before this

Court which were raised before the trial Court

contending that awards passed in question are opposed

to public policy and as such, the trial Court ought to

have interfered with said awards in exercise of the

appellate power and set aside the awards passed under

Section 34 of the Act and prays exercising of said power

by this Court. The Division Bench of this Court had an

occasion to consider similar question in the matter of

H.M.SHANKARMURTHY VS. NATIONAL HIGHWAY

: 27 :

AUTHORITIES OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in ILR

2010 KAR 3711 and it has been held under: -

“13. A provision for setting aside an

award contending that the award is not

sustainable in law on any one of the grounds

as indicated above can never be construed

as a provision enabling the land owner

seeking for enhancement of the

compensation amount as determined by the

Arbitrator. The Learned Judge of the

District Court has rightly rejected the

application under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The

application itself was not tenable. The

appeal also is equally not tenable and even

otherwise without any merit.”

17. This Court rejected the appeal which was

filed under Section 37 of the Act, wherein the award

passed by the Competent Authority under the National

Highways Act by affirming the award passed by the

Deputy Commissioner who had enhanced the

compensation and appeal filed thereon before this Court

came to be rejected. On the ground that claimant was

: 28 :

not able to demonstrate before this Court that award is

not sustainable or any of the grounds enumerated

under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1996. The same

factual matrix is appearing in all these present appeals.

If an award made by the Arbitrator is vitiated on

account of either over looking the contents of a

document brought to his notice or ignoring it, then it

can be held or construed that there has been non-

examination of material evidence available on record

and in such an event, the award would have called for

modification, as otherwise, it cannot be construed as

vitiated or opposed to public policy on account of non-

consideration of material available on record. It is

precisely this aspect which came to be construed in

KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED, KARWAR,

UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT VS. SPECIAL LAND

ACQUISITION OFFICER-II, MANGALORE SUPER THERMAL

POWER PROJECT, MULKI, DAKSHINA KANNADA

DISTRICT AND ANOTHER reported in 2004(1) KAR. L.J.

210, wherein their Lordships considered as to when an

: 29 :

award should be construed as opposed to public policy,

namely when there is non consideration of material

evidence available on record and only then it would

come within the mischief of being opposed to ‘public

policy’ as otherwise it would not.

18. In this background, when the facts on hand

are examined, it can be noticed that the claimants

contention is that potentiality of the land acquired for

the purposes of formation of National Highway was not

considered by the Competent Authority as well as by the

2nd respondent. 2nd respondent while enhancing the

compensation by awarding additional 50%

compensation for the lands acquired, has rightly come

to the conclusion that the situation and potentialities of

lands in adjoining villages are different from the land

covered under sale deed dated 14.08.2000 and same

cannot be relied upon by relying upon the judgment of

the Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 317. The said

finding is based on sound appreciation of facts and

applying the dicta laid down by the Apex Court, yet

: 30 :

another factor which requires to be noticed is that sale

deed dated 14.08.2000 is relating to R.S. No.220/6 of

Hirebagewadi village sold for a consideration of

Rs.19,000/- per gunta and it was sought to be

established or made as a basis by the claimants to seek

for the same amount of compensation being awarded to

them. Arbitrator on perusal of the village map of

Hirebagewadi village found that the acquired lands are

found to be nearer to Siddanabavi village and land in

R.S. No.220/6 is nearer to Hirebagewadi village. Thus,

taking into consideration, the distance between the

acquired lands and Survey No.220/6 of Hirebagewadi,

he held that sale deed sought to be relied upon by the

claimants cannot accept. At this juncture, it requires to

be noticed that what was acquired is an agriculture

land and the extent of land covered is around 4453

square metres or 44.08 guntas. Whereas, the land

covered under the sale deed dated 14.08.2000 that is

R.S. No.220/6 which was said to have been sold for

Rs.19,000/- per gunta, the extent covered is only 101

: 31 :

square metres., which is less than a gunta. As such,

the smaller chunk of the land which has been sold

under the said sale deed dated 14.08.2000 cannot form

the basis or it cannot be construed to be the yardstick

for determining the compensation, in respect of the

larger area which has been acquired and that too

agricultural lands.

19. Though Shri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned

counsel appearing for the claimants has made a valiant

attempt to persuade this Court that finding recorded by

the 2nd respondent that lands of the appellants which

are acquired is not abutting, Siddanabavi village and it

is an erroneous finding on the premise that there is no

such village called as Siddanabavi and it is non existent

in the village map, I am not inclined to accept the said

submission or contention for two reasons: -

i) The claimants were fully aware as to

what was the finding that was recorded

by the 2nd respondent, when he

enhanced a compensation and passed

the orders. Nothing prevented them to

: 32 :

demonstrate this fact before the trial

Court when they filed a petition under

Section 34(2) of the Act, 1996,

challenging the said award. However,

no such ground was urged in this

regard before the District Court.

ii) Even otherwise, even in the grounds

urged before this Court in the present

appeal memorandums, there is no

such contentions raised or grounds

urged. For the first time, in this appeal

which is virtually a second appeal, a

new ground is sought to be put forward

and same is impermissible.

Hence, said contention raised by the learned counsel for

the appellants cannot be entertained and it stands

rejected.

20. Last but not the least, an award passed by

the Arbitrator which can be the subject matter of

challenge before the District Court can be challenged or

in other words can be entertained by said Court only on

the grounds enumerated indicated in Section 34(2) and

: 33 :

none of these grounds are available to the claimants or

they are attracted to facts on hand, since the claimants

had proper notice of the appointment of Arbitrator; they

had availed full opportunity before the Arbitrator; it was

a dispute to be dealt as contemplated under Section 3-G

of National Highways Act; there was no complaint

regarding composition of the Arbitrator or tribunal; no

complaint with regard to the procedure adopted by the

Arbitrator was made at any point of time; and, the

Arbitrator has taken into consideration the statutory

provision, namely Section 3-G(7) into consideration,

namely clauses (A) to (D) for enhancing the

compensation and as such, the learned trial judge has

rightly come to the conclusion, the award passed by the

Arbitrator cannot be interfered with considering the

scope of Section 34 of the Act, 1996,. The said finding

recorded by the trial Court while affirming the awards

passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be held or

construed as suffering from infirmities either on facts or

on law calling for interference, by this Court in exercise

: 34 :

of Appellate powers. Hence, point Nos.1 and 2

formulated herein above, deserves to be answered

against the appellants/claimants and in favour of the

1st respondent.

RE. POINT NO.3:

21. For the reasons aforestated, following order

is passed.

ORDER

i) Appeals are hereby dismissed.

ii) The judgment passed by the Principal

District Judge, Belgaum, in Arbitration

Case Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

& 14 of 2011 dated 22.10.2011

rejecting the petition filed under

Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996,

are hereby affirmed.

iii) Parties to bear their costs.

SD/-JUDGE

Rsh

in the high court of karnataka circuit bench at...

Documents