Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, T Younis, was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.503/A1 and 503/B2 in Amarathi village, Hospet. His land was compulsorily acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for widening of National Highway No.13 from 4 to 6 lanes between Hungund and Hospete. The acquisition was carried out under the National Highways Act, 1956, and the compensation was determined through compulsory arbitration under Section 3(g) of that Act. The arbitrator, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District, passed an award. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award, approached the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, by filing an application to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the District Judge rejected the application on the ground that the award had already been made rule of the court without giving the petitioner an opportunity to file objections. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, seeking to quash the order of the District Judge dated 5/8/2023. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the District Judge's order was without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The court observed that the compulsory arbitration under the National Highways Act does not exclude the application of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to file objections before the award is made rule of the court. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the District Judge to consider the petitioner's application to file objections on merits and in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Compulsory Arbitration under National Highways Act - Section 3(g) of National Highways Act, 1956 read with Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Opportunity to file objections - The petitioner, whose land was acquired for highway widening, challenged the arbitral award passed under Section 3(g) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The District Judge rejected the petitioner's application to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, holding that the award was made rule of the court without notice to the petitioner. The High Court quashed the order, holding that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to file objections before the award is made rule of the court, as the compulsory arbitration under the National Highways Act does not exclude the application of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. (Paras 1-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - Interference with orders of subordinate courts - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, which was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the District Judge's order rejecting the petitioner's application to file objections was unsustainable and set aside the same. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an arbitral award passed under Section 3(g) of the National Highways Act, 1956, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file objections before making the award rule of the court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 5/8/2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, and directed the District Judge to consider the petitioner's application to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties.
Law Points
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 34
- Section 36
- National Highways Act
- 1956
- Section 3(g)
- Compulsory Arbitration
- Opportunity of hearing
- Natural justice
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
WP No. 105176 of 2023 (GM-RES)
Smt. Archana Magadum for petitioner; Sri. Praveen Uppar for R3; Smt. Shilpa Shah for R1; Sri. Rakesh M. Bilki for R1; Sri. Shivasai M Patil for R2
National Highway Authority of India, The Competent Authority Special Land Acquisition Officer, The Arbitrator and Additional Deputy Commissioner
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, rejecting the petitioner's application to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award passed under Section 3(g) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 5/8/2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, and to allow the petitioner to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's land was compulsorily acquired for widening of National Highway No.13, and the arbitral award was passed under Section 3(g) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner was aggrieved by the award and sought to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, but the District Judge rejected the application without giving an opportunity.
Previous Decisions
The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, passed an order on 5/8/2023 rejecting the petitioner's application to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that the award had already been made rule of the court.
Issues
Whether the District Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without affording an opportunity of hearing?
Whether the compulsory arbitration under Section 3(g) of the National Highways Act, 1956, excludes the application of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the District Judge erred in rejecting the application to file objections without giving an opportunity to be heard, and that the award could not be made rule of the court without considering objections under Section 34.
The respondents argued that the award was passed under the compulsory arbitration scheme of the National Highways Act and that the petitioner had no right to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The compulsory arbitration under Section 3(g) of the National Highways Act, 1956, does not exclude the application of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A party aggrieved by an arbitral award under the National Highways Act has the right to file objections under Section 34, and the court must give an opportunity to file such objections before making the award rule of the court. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and is without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner being the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.503/A1 and 503/B2 of Amarathi village, Hospet, being aggrieved by the compulsory acquisition of land sought for by respondent No.2 for widening of the National Highway from 4 to 6 lanes of N.H.13 from Hungund to Hospete, was constrained to approach the Methodology of Compulsory Arbitration prescribed under Subsection (g) of Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5/8/2023 produced at Annexure-A & A1 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge Ballari; b. Issue any other order or writ in the interest of justice and equity.
Procedural History
The petitioner's land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The arbitrator passed an award under Section 3(g) of the Act. The petitioner filed an application before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, to file objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The District Judge rejected the application by order dated 5/8/2023. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which was allowed on 22/1/2024.
Acts & Sections
- National Highways Act, 1956: Section 3(g)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
