BK Arora HUF v. Union of India & Anr.

1. With the passage of time, the necessity to adjudicate on the prayers in this petition stands obviated.

2. This petition pertains to an arbitration in terms of Section 3G(5)1 of the National Highways Act, 1956[2]. There is no dispute that 3-G. Determination of amount payable as compensation. – (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) the power of appointment of the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) read with Section 3G(6) of the NH Act vests with the Central Government. In exercise of the said power, the Central Government had appointed the District Magistrate, South West as the Arbitrator. This petition seeks termination of the mandate of the District Magistrate, and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.

3. As it transpires, even before this petition was filed, by Notification dated 29 September 2023, issued under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, the Central Government had appointed the Special Secretary, Land and Building Department to exercise all powers of Arbitrator under the said provision.

4. As a result, prayer (a) in this petition has been rendered infructuous.

5. Though Mr. Mohan has his reservations regarding the legality of the appointment of the Special Secretary, Land and Building of Section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government— (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration— (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3-A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;

(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;

(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change. “the NH Act” hereinafter Department as the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, he submits that this challenge does not form part of the pleadings in the present petition and, therefore, submits that this petition may be disposed of reserving his right to challenge the appointment of the Special Secretary, Land and Building Department as the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, if so advised.

6. It may be noted that Mr. Shivam Goel, learned counsel for the respondent, joins issue with Mr. Mohan on the legality of the appointment of the Special Secretary.

7. Nonetheless, as the legality of the appointment of the Special Secretary is not subject matter of challenge in the present petition, it is not for this court to express any view thereon.

8. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are not applicable.

9. This Court is not expressing any view thereon.

10. The petition is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous, reserving liberty with the petitioner, should it still have any grievance with respect to the appointment of substitute Arbitrator, to take remedies in accordance with law.