IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA&RNATAK5AV--AT M' _
DATED THIS Q?
THE HoN'BL$~M1§m;gIsf:aa8eLI NAGARAJ
._B_____.__..______.F31V\/'E1*31\TI
Paramashiyarieéé V "
S/0 Kalappla Cljdunder» 4'
Since dVea.._c;1 _lA:5y,_hiS--I A'
1 . P.D:11an_a1a k sE11nfi' -'
K.ParamashiVé{nj ,._ _
Aged abgéut 'V55 yeara,
2. S.._Téir11i1araéi~o K.Se1varaj,
Ag'ed.%1Labout 39 years,
A A *R_/ o_NO.- 1 Shankar Nivas,
_I.sVt A_f1_}na Nagar
- A Kara?' -os'.~§,:3g'e02
"Eami}.~ Ngfldu.
P.h~.a§I:1raVan S/0 late K.,ParamashiVam,
n ,A.ged"'about 38 years.
V }".Suresh S/0 Late K.Paramashivam,
Aged about 35 years.
5. S¢MaheshWari W/0 M.S€ndi1 Kumar,
Aged about 33 years, R/f _
Project Implementatiori Unit, fNe'arJM];'E',
NH~4 (KM~2Q1}._.Chi;trad'ui'ga >g5V77i
Represented its Vprojeet I)i1je'eto::..V--
2. The Compeitnffljt Aijthoiriiyr f()1°" 1
Land' AC.quisiti'1 College, Behind
MM Krishna 'Petrol
Hadadiifioad, "
D;aVangere'~-.. 577 005.
The iifiepiity Commissioner,
' _CE1ii:i*adiii'gaDistrioti
2 x'Cvhifrai;i.1;rig.a'V~ 577 501. . . . Respondents
–V (By’.4E§~ri.’Siitieep.V.C, Adv. for
M}’s_ Singhania & Partners for R1,
AA Sangamesh G.Pati1, AGA for R2 81 R3)
This MFA is filed under Section 3′.7(1}(B) of the
‘4 hivarbitration and Conciliation Act, against the order dated
22.8.2009 passed in Arbitration Case (A) No.6}/2007 on
the file of the Principal District Judge, Chiiradurga,
rejecting the appiieation filed under Section 34(2) of the
3
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for enhancen:ie~:it1_V_0f
Compensation. 7 ‘V
This MFA Coming on for,u,adInis.s’ie1’ifihis ‘play, ”
N.K.Pati1 J ., delivered the followingze ._
JUDG},\,jiEN’l”–.A
Though this matter i9VAi.prif3’teti-._.i’0r”admission, with
the consent of both ;t:a*l<_en up for final
disposal.
2. This claimant against the
commen passed in Arbitration
Case (A) lN’ol_l55f20t)’3l’and-Afhitration case (A) No.61/2007
on file of Principal District Judge, Chitradurga,
Wiieifein ‘t1f1€v’.’C,OUft below has set aside the award passed
‘lVl.2§irbitfat0r and remanded the matter for
Q reeoneideration as envisaged under Section 3G(‘7) ta} to
National Highway Act 1956. Being aggrieved by
‘ the’ eaid order, this appeal is filed.
3. The brief facts of the case are :
Respondents l and 2 have acquired the land in
questien for the purpose of formation of NH 4 as
/95;;
»¢4>’-‘I
£
4
envisaged under provisions of National Highway Act,
i956 by issuing preliminary and final Y1QtiflCaiiQT}.$3l;.”-._:;Fl’]€
respondent No.2 herein being the eompetenihiiiitligoritgfl’.
for land acquisition has passe.-:l,__’the~'” ll”
30.12.2002 in respect of Sy.No.224,f4*~
measuring 35 guntas and 2 guntas respeetiveiy'”situated*. ‘
at Hiriyur Village, Being
dissatisfied with the respondent
herein, the tiled an appeal
under Seciiilonj— ._Highways Act, 1956
seeking’ ” it eoiripfensation. The 3rd
respond’enti. Veohnsidering the materials on
reeord_vhasl4″passeq’ thelaiivard dated 8.5.2007, awarding
V’ .corIip’en.satioxn 0iHRs’;’7O0/~ per square feet.
‘– F’–«.4;.’Ehéingzhalégrieved by the said award passed by the
Arbitrat’or,.’the appellants – claimants and respondents 1
2 have filed an application L1I}d€}i’ Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration Act in Arbitration case (A) 55/2007 and
Arbitration case (A) 61/2007 respectively. Both the
eases had some up for consideration before the Principal
District Judge at Chitradtirga. Learned District Judge,
2′;
, ‘ 5 ,.,»»»»°*’
.3 VMW” ‘M
‘ l supra’. «.
5
after hearing the both sides and after considering the
materials on record has allowed the Arbitration
55/2007 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 .
the Arbitration case (A) 61/2007 filed_ by the” it ” it
Claimants herein in proceedings
06 dated 8.5.2007 in respeetv:vp4’of_ suit’ andkl
remanded the matter» _.for re-»det.e’rrnination… to the
quantification of amoulntpof after hearing
both parties, of Section
soc?) (a) 1956. Not being
satisfied9évi’tlt’:;:.1:f1e’: passed by the learned
Principal appellantselaimants herein
filed the app_ea]VV’,-selerlstirilgl appropriate relief as stated
d. GiirudeV.I.Gaehehinaniath, learned Counsel
appearing for the appellants submit that learned District
A V.:i’dndg.e has committed an error in as much as when the
l appeals filed by the respondents 1 and 2 as well as the
.4 appeliants — claimants under Section 62(2) of Arbitration
Act itself were not inaintainablei he ought not to have
entertained the appeals and set aside the award passed
A
.s r x’
Z ,, ,,««»
x -m»»*”””MM’
7
passed by the 3″? respondent. We have seen the original
Copy of the award, which is at page N030, which
about 6 pages. Except narrating the
and conditions of the claimants and the “‘
and 2 and name of Honfble High
Supreme Court in the judgnlerm, nothing.halslbeer>..stated*..L’
and proceeded to pass the any
Valid reasons and it is Hence, it is
liable to be set a§,;.de. has rightly
set aside reconsideration
afresh, “Considered View that we do
not find, in the impugned order
passed byilthe Therefore, we decline to
iiidthellllirripugned order passed by the Court
,_bel.e{V; the appeal filed by the appellants
claimants liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is
l” ” « ._ “dpismisseil.
it 8.. However, it is needless to clarify that the 3″
respondent shall decide the matter on merits in
eornplianee of Section 3G [7′)[a) to (d) of National
Highways Act, i956 Without being intlueneed by the
W
, ,,.s~w»'”‘ ”
I’
3!
2,
8
observations made by the iearned District Judge in the
impugned order and also the observations
during the course of this Judgment, and decide
independently, on merits, after affording ‘ted
both the parties to adduee additid”naI:’.Aevidedfiee
or documentary, and decide–.j:’h.e same, as’ ‘~e:><ipe'(iitibus1y""
as possible, in any event, \x.ri,t1'1iri_'a:« period bf v-£0111' months
from the date of receipfdf_'edpy:Cf v'Jii'dgment.
i 3e3i ii ieaee Sig/ea EEEEDGE