IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Arbitration Appeal No.:_______/2023
APPELLANTS/ Madhya Pradesh Road
DEFENDANTS/ Development Corporation
NON-CLAIMANTS:
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS/ Smt. Ashok Vij
CLAIMANTS:
INDEX
S. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE PAGE
NO. NO. NO.
1. Index
2. Chronology of Events
3. Memo of Appeal
4. List of Documents
5. Copy of the award passed by the CALA A/1
dated 31.08.2015.
6. Copy of the claim petition U/s 3-G (5) filed A/2
on behalf of the Respondents no.1 and 2.
7. Copy of the reply filed by the Appellant A/3
herein before the Commissioner.
8. Copy of the order dated 08.02.2017 A/4
passed by the learned Commissioner.
9. Copy of the application U/s 34 filed by the A/5
Appellant before the Court of District
Judge Jabalpur.
10.Copy of the impugned order dt. A/6
11.01.2023.
11.Copy of the objection filed by the A/7
respondent
12.A copy of the order dated 26.09.2022 A/8
passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No.
25536/2022
13.Vakalatnama
JABALPUR ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA
DATED: COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Arbitration Appeal No. :_______/2023
APPELLANTS/ Madhya Pradesh Road
DEFENDANTS/ Development Corporation
NON-CLAIMANTS:
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS/ Smt. Ashok Vij
CLAIMANTS:
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
DATE EVENTS
S.
NO.
1. 08.02.2017 The Learned Single Arbitrator has passed the
award in favour of the claimants/respondents
thereby enhanced the compensation amount.
2. ___ The appellant filed an application under Section
34 of the Act of 1996 seeking setting aside of the
award.
3. 11.01.2023 Impugned order passed by the learned Court
below, dismissing the Appellant’s application
under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act of 1996.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order the Appellant
has preferred the instant appeal.
JABALPUR ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA
DATED: .01.2023 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Arbitration Appeal No. :_______/2023
APPELLANTS: : 1. Madhya Pradesh Road
Development Corporation
Through Divisional
Manager, O/o Road
Development Corporation,
Jabalpur, Chief Engineer,
Madhya Kshetra, In front
of Public Works
Department, South Civil
Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.),
482001
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT: 1. Smt. Ashok Vij D/o- Late
Shri Jagat Bahadur Vij,
Aged about- 65 years,
R/o—Main Road, Tilhari,
Jabalpur, District-
Jabalpur M.P.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996
Claim in appeal Valued at Rs.
Court fees paid Rs :
Claim before the Tribunal :
Award by CALA : Rs. 1,18,45,479/-
Amount awarded by Commissioner : Enhanced the
award to the tune of Rs. 2,05,32,164/-
(I) PARTICULARS OF THE AWARD :
(a) Case Number : 0038/A-82/2016-17
(b)Date of award : 08.02.2017
(c) Award Passed by : Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator of
Jabalpur
(d)The name of the member : no (Sole Arbitrator)
(e) Designation and place of sitting of the Tribunal :
Jabalpur
(II) PARTICULARS OF AGREEMENT : (N/A) (Statutory
Arbitration)
(a) Date : N/A
(Place : (N/A)
(III) PARTICULARS OF FACTS (In chronological manner):
(a) That, the instant present appeal is filed being aggrieved by
the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by District Judge (24 TH),
Jabalpur Shri Yashwant Malviya in MJC (AV-96/2017)
whereby the application under Section 34(3) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been dismissed.
(b) That, the learned Court below while passing the impugned
order dismissed the application U/s 34 filed by the
Appellant herein on the ground that the award so passed in
the instant case is not against the public policy of India and
neither is against any specific provisions of law so as to
warrant the interference at the stage of Section 34.
(c) The Respondent no.1 and 2 are owners of land bearing
Khasra no. 67/1 admeasuring 1.872 hectare out of this
0.250 situated in Mauja Katiyaghat, Patwari Halka No.
23/70 District Jabalpur. The notification under Section 3-a
of the NH Act for the purpose of acquisition of land in
question was published on 29.04.2011. Thereafter, the
notification U/s 3(G)(3) of the NH Act was published on
20.04.2015 after calling objections and the Collector
guidelines of 2014-15 was applied in the instant case by the
Competent Authority.
(d) The Competent Authority cum Land Acquisition Officer i.e.
CALA by award dated 31.08.2015 determined compensation
of Rs. 1,18,45,479/- land bearing Khasra no. 67/1
admeasuring 1.872 hectare out of this 0.250 situated in
Mauja Katiyaghat, Patwari Halka No. 23/70 District
Jabalpur. A Copy of the award passed by the CALA dated
31.08.2015 is being marked and filed herewith as
ANNEXURE-A/1.
(e) The Respondents no.1 named herein being aggrieved of
such award preferred a dispute in terms of enhanced
application as provided in Section 3-G (5) of the NH Act
before the Commissioner cum Arbitrator. Claiming a total
amount of compensation to be enhanced. A Copy of the
claim petition U/s 3-G (5) filed on behalf of the Respondents
no.1 is being marked and filed herewith as
ANNEXURE-A/2.
(f) The Appellant herein filed a detailed written before the
Commissioner objecting to the said claim stating that just
and proper compensation has been awarded by the
Competent Authority stating that a very small piece of land
has been acquired by the Competent Authority specifically
treating the land of the Respondents as diverted land. The
Appellant herein further specifically stated that there is no
sign of any development over the land in question, neither
any proof that the land of the Respondent no.1 are
commercial, residential or developed for any other purposes
and merely because adjoining area are developed (near to
Jabalpur) cannot be considered as a fact for determining
higher compensation to the Respondent no.1. The appellant
also highlighted that the respondents have claimed
compensation for common road area also over which the
respondents cannot be said to have title. A Copy of the reply
filed by the Appellant herein before the Commissioner is
being marked and filed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/3.
(g) The learned Commissioner vide order dated 08.02.2017
awarded the enhanced amount of Rs. 2,05,32,164/-
towards land bearing Khasra no. 67/1 admeasuring 1.872
hectare out of this 0.250 situated in Mauja Katiyaghat,
Patwari Halka No. 23/70, District Jabalpur contrary to the
Collector guidelines without appreciating any of the
contentions raised by the Appellant in the reply so filed and
incorrectly applying Clause 4.1 of the Collector guidelines
whereby a formula has been provided for residential plots
which is not the case in the instant dispute. A Copy of the
order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the learned
Commissioner is being marked and filed herewith as
ANNEXURE-A/4.
(h) The Appellant herein being aggrieved of the order passed by
the learned Commissioner dated 08.02.2017 preferred an
application U/s 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
challenging the said award on the ground that Collector
guidelines are not applicable in the instant case and the
Respondent no. 1 have not proved to any material document
that the land in question was residential and further the
incorrect interpretation of the Commissioner while
considering the surrounding commercial activities is
incorrect however, without considering any of the material
fact which highlight that the award passed by the
Commissioner against public policy of India passed the
impugned order dated 11.01.2023. A Copy of the application
U/s 34(3) filed by the Appellant before the Court of District
Judge Jabalpur is being marked and filed herewith as
ANNEXURE A/5, and the impugned order dated
08.02.2017 is marked and filed herewith as ANNEXURE-
A/6.
(IV) DETAILS OF ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL (in
short):
That the Arbitral Tribunal-cum-Commissioner has enhanced
the amount award and awarded an enhanced amount of Rs.
2,05,32,164/- without appreciating the reply submitted by the
applicant corporation and during the course of the arguments,
in case of the petitioner, residential rates would not be
applicable and it would only be agricultural rates as per
collector guidelines which would be applicable in the instant
case but the same was not considered and the compensation
amount was enhanced.
(V) OTHER RELEVANT FACTS:
(a) The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act has filed by the applicant Corporation
before this Hon'ble Court, being aggrieved by the order
dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court wherein
an application under Section 34(3) filed by the appellant
Corporation has been rejected on the ground that the case
of the appellant does not come within the purview of Section
34(2)(b)(II), therefore, it is not against public policy of India,
with this observation application of the applicant has been
rejected.
(b)The applicant respectfully submit that before giving the
details of the impugned order, the applicant herein puts
forth certain importance questions which require
consideration in the instant appeal, which are as under:
i. Whether the Ld. Arbitrator correctly applied the
formula of residential and commercial land in the
instant case without considering whether the
land was developed or not?
ii. Whether the Ld. Arbitrator correctly appreciated
that the land even in case of urban area would
not fall within the purview of clause 4.1 of the
collector guidelines until and unless the land
owner shows that his/her land was developed or
diverted?
iii. Whether the Ld. Arbitrator was required to at
least provide a reason for applying clause 4.1 of
collector guidelines?
iv. Whether the Ld. Trial Court was correct in
holding that a deliberate attempt to apply
plot/residential rates as against agricultural rates
when there is a specific averment about it which
has not been considered, and even further
without adjudication on the said issue when
public money is used for payment of
compensation is not a violation of public policy of
India?
v. Whether the Ld. Trial Court while applying the
judgment of this Hon’ble Court in AA. 08/2022
(MPRDC v. Mohd. Shahabuddin & Ors)
committed an error in law for the reason that in
the collector guideline the rates 1,50,00,000/- per
Hect. has been prescribed for agricultural land
and these rates have been prescribed on account
of situation of the land and in the Collector
guideline 2014-15 Gram Gauraiyaghat and
Katiyaghat are situated in the Municipal Area
therefore, rates of 1,50,00,000/- per Hect. has
been fixed and in the guideline it is specifically
mentioned word 'special village' and Gram
Gauraiyaghat and Katiyaghat are in the
Municipal Area therefore the rates of the 'special
village' are not applicable but the Trial Court did
not consider this argument which was raised by
the applicant Corporation?
(c) The Trial Court failed to appreciate the order passed by the
coordinate Court in MJC(AV) No. 165/2017 in the case of
Damyanti Chouhan wherein it has been observed that
collector guidelines are for registration of the document and
it cannot be used for the purpose of calculating the
compensation and so far as present case is concerned it
belongs to the same village wherein the coordinate Court
has passed an order on 08.07.19 thus, looking to this
peculiar fact the order dated 27.01.2023 is nothing but an
exercise contrary to Section 34.
(d)That in the Section 34 application, the applicant herein had
categorically raised an objection that not a single document
was filed before the arbitrator to establish the fact that the
land was residential, how without considering any of the
submissions, the impugned order has been passed.
(e) The Trial Court failed to consider that in the case of Mohd.
Shahbuddin acquisition is not made for industrial purpose
it is made for widening of the road and that is public
purpose thus, the rates prescribed for a particular land
would be applicable and it was argued that according to
Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act the 100%
solatium has already been granted by the competent
authority according to the agricultural rates prescribed in
the collector guidelines thus, the award of the arbitrator is
not sustainable.
(f) It is submitted by the applicant Corporation that in the case
of Mohd. Shahbuddin that before the Arbitrator as well as
this Court in an application argued by the Corporation that
the compensation has been enhanced for the total land
whereas certainly for development 30 to 40% land is
required to be left according to the verdict of the Supreme
Court but it has not been considered.
(g) That, the applicant Corporation further humbly submits
before this Court that during the course of the argument
which is available in the written argument, submitted before
this Court categorically argued that in the case of Associate
Builders certain parameters have been laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and if case is covered in those
parameters then award may be interfered and one of the
reason in the case of Associate Builder was if award is
contrary to the principle of natural justice as also without
assigning any reason or illegality goes root into the matter
and herein this case illegality is apparent on this particular
count that in the cases of Gauraiyaghat and Katiyaghat in
more than 38 cases award has been passed in mechanical
manner without giving a single reason why Clause 4.1
would be applicable despite this fact that agricultural land
has been acquired.
(h)The applicant Corporation during the argument in the case
argued that if land is situated in Municipal area then only
9% hike is permissible on the rate prescribed for
agricultural land and importantly because of situation in
the municipal area the amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- has
been prescribed in the collector guideline for calculating the
compensation and in the guidelines of 2019 and 2020, 20%
has been reduced from the earlier guidelines so this clearly
shows that it is only for calculation of the compensation and
acquisition is made for the public purpose (widening of the
road) thus, in light of the case of Savitri Devi the Collector
guidelines cannot be applied in verbatim.
(i) The Ld. Trial Court further erred in passing the order
impugned in cyclostyle manner even ignoring the objection
of the respondent wherein an order in review of the award
was relied upon. A copy of the objection filed by the
respondent is being marked and filed herewith as
ANNEXURE-A/7.
(j) The Ld. Trial Court relied upon the decision of this Hon’ble
Court in AA/08/2022 on 13.04.2022 in a mechanical
manner. It is further submitted that the order passed by
this Hon’ble Court in AA/08/2022 on 13.04.2022 was
challenged by the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court
in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 25536/2022 wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has been pleased to issue notices on
26.09.2022. A copy of the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in
SLP (Civil) Diary No. 25536/2022 passed in is marked and
filed herewith as ANNEXURE-A/8.
(k)Petitioner having no other efficacious alternative or suitable
remedy for redressal of its grievances except to invoke the
jurisdiction guaranteed under section 37 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, hence the present petition.
(VI) GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
6. (1) . The order passed by the learned Subordinate Court is
perverse, illegal and no reasoning have been recorded while
rejecting an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 therefore, it is bad in law and it
may be quashed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of
justice.
6. (2) . Because, impugned award passed by the Sole
Arbitrator as affirmed by the Court below is wholly illegal
contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law, justice,
morality, contrary to statute and patently illegal warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of powers under
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. (3) . Because, the award one of the specific argument
pointed out by the Corporation that the arbitrator has failed
to appreciate this particular aspect that the rates prescribed
for the agricultural would have been applicable and apart
from this the area where land is situated comes within the
Municipal Area and therefore, the rate 1,50,00,000/-
prescribed in the agricultural land thus, in the interest of
justice the award passed by the arbitrator may be set aside
but the Trial Court has failed to appreciate this argument
despite this fact that public money involved in all these
cases on this ground the award may be set aside by this
Hon'ble Court.
6. (4) . The learned subordinate Court has completely failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in it legally and properly and
therefore it committed manifest error of law leading to
miscarriage of justice and on this ground the order passed
by the subordinate Court may be quashed by this Hon'ble
Court in the interest of justice.
6. (5) . BECAUSE, the Ld. Arbitrator erred in enhancing the
compensation award by only relying on the Collector
guidelines without asserting the facts and circumstances of
the case, also the award passed by the Ld. Arbitrator is
without appreciating the fact that the land(s) in question are
agricultural, and undeveloped land(s).
6. (6) . The award passed by the Ld. Arbitrator is in
contravention to judicial precedent yield by the Apex Court
in Kasturi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354
wherein it was held that any claim that land is fully
developed and nothing more is required to be done for
development purpose must be based on evidence.
6. (7) . BECAUSE, Hon’ble below Court failed to appreciate
that the method of computation used by the arbitrator to
ascertain the market value of the said land based upon the
collector guidelines without any proof to the nature of land
is liable to be set aside.
6. (8) . BECAUSE, the Hon’ble below Court should have
applied the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,
1973, applicable to lands in question which were acquired
under the Highways Act and the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 as these lands are under Municipal
Corporation limits of Jabalpur, M.P.
6. (9) . BECAUSE, the Hon’ble below Court failed to appreciate
that Ld. Arbitrator enhanced the compensation award in
cyclostyle manner without any basis or report as to the land
are commercial and/or residential.
6. (10) . BECAUSE, the Hon’ble below Court has relied on
Collector guidelines to make valuation of market value of
the land(s) acquired in question, but this cannot be made
sole basis to determine actual compensation for the land(s)
acquired.
6. (11) . BECAUSE, the learned Courts below failed to exercise
of jurisdiction under section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and is liable to be set aside.
6. (12) . That, the Appellant reserves its right to raise other
grounds if any during the course of arguments with the
leave of this Hon’ble Court.
(VII) RELIEF CLAIMED IN APPEAL
It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to:
a. Call for the entire records pertaining to MJC (AV-
96/2017) before District Judge (15TH), Jabalpur
b. Set aside the impugned Judgment & Decree dated
11.01.2023 passed in MJC (AV No. 96/2017) passed by
District Judge (24TH), Jabalpur Shri Yashwant Malviya,
and also the award dated 29.06.2016 passed by the sole
arbitrator Divisional Commissioner Jabalpur.
c. Further direct the Arbitrator-Cum-Commissioner to re-
calculate the award after determining the nature of land
in question and not apply residential rates mechanically,
looking into the aspect that the land which has been
acquired is raw, undeveloped and agricultural, in the
interest of justice.
VIII. CAVEAT:
That, no notice of caveat is received by the appellant herein.
JABALPUR ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA
DATED: .2023 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Arbitration Appeal No. :_______/2023
APPELLANTS/ Madhya Pradesh Road
DEFENDANTS/ Development Corporation
NON-CLAIMANTS:
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS/ Smt. Ashok Vij
CLAIMANTS:
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
S. DESCRIPTION OF DATE OF ORIGINAL/ NUMBER
NO. DOCUMENTS DOCUMEN COPY OF
T PAGES
(1) Copy of the award
passed by the CALA
dated 31.08.2015.
(2) Copy of the claim
petition U/s 3-G (5)
filed on behalf of the
Respondents no.1 and
2.
(3) Copy of the reply filed
by the Appellant
herein before the
Commissioner.
(4) Copy of the order
dated 08.02.2017
passed by the learned
Commissioner.
(5) Copy of the
application U/s 34
filed by the Appellant
before the Court of
District Judge
Jabalpur.
(6) Copy of the impugned
order dt. 11.01.2023
(7) Copy of the objection
filed by the
respondent
(8) Copy of the order
dated 26.09.2022
passed in SLP (Civil)
Diary No.
25536/2022
JABALPUR ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA
DATED: .2023 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Arbitration Appeal No. :_______/2023
APPELLANTS/ Madhya Pradesh Road
DEFENDANTS/ Development Corporation
NON-CLAIMANTS:
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS/ Smt. Ashok Vij
CLAIMANTS:
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT SEEKING
STAY
The appellants beg to submit as under:
1. That, the present appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order
dated 11.01.2023 passed in MJC (AV- 96/2017) passed by
District Judge (24th), Jabalpur Shri Yashwant Malviya,
dismissing the application under Section 34 (3) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. That, appellant highlighted in the accompanying appeal that
the Ld. Commissioner-cum-arbitrator enhanced the award
amount on an incorrect ground that the compensation be
awarded for residential land as against agricultural land
treating the land to be developed, without ascertaining from
any document that the land has been developed.
3. That, even the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 does not
consider such fact, and thus the impugned order rejecting
the Appellant’s application under Section 34 of the Act of
1996 is not in accordance with law and deserves to be
interfered with by this Hon’ble Court.
4. That, for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the
Appellant humbly prays that the grounds raised in the
Appeal be read as part of this Application seeking stay.
5. That, the Appellant is sanguine of his success in the present
Appeal but the final adjudication of the present appeal by
this Hon’ble Court would take some time and thus the
Appellant prefers the instant application seeking stay of
Award dated 08.02.2017 till final adjudication of the present
appeal on its merits.
6. Consequently, in view of the foregoing facts the present
application seeking stay of the Award dated 08.02.2017
deserves to be allowed in the best interest of justice.
PRAYER
It is therefore most humbly prayed by the Appellant that the
present application seeking stay may kindly be allowed and
the Award dated 08.02.2017 along with the impugned order
dated 11.01.2023 may kindly be stayed in the interest of
justice.
JABALPUR ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA
DATED: .04.2023 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
Arbitration Appeal No. :_______/2023
APPELLANTS/ Madhya Pradesh Road
DEFENDANTS/ Development Corporation
NON-CLAIMANTS:
//Versus//
RESPONDENTS/ Smt. Ashok Vij
CLAIMANTS:
AFFIDAVIT
I,
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Jabalpur (M.P.), do hereby state on oath as under:
1. That, I am the OIC of the appellant in this case and competent to
swear this affidavit and fully conversant with the facts of this
case.
2. That this appeal has been drafted and filed from my instructions
and the contents therein are true. The documents attached
thereto are true copies of the original documents.
3. That, the contents of the attached appeal from paragraph 1 to its
end and annexures attached thereto are true to my personal
knowledge and belief.
VERIFICATION
I, ________________, above named deponent do hereby verify that
the contents of Para 1 to 3 of above affidavit are true to my personal
knowledge.
Verified and signed on this ___________________ at Jabalpur .
