1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeal Nos.226, 227 & 228 of 2025 Date of decision: 20.06.2025 1. Arbitration Appeal No.226 of 2025 Sita Ram. ...Appellant. Versus Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. ...Respondents. 2. Arbitration Appeal No.227 of 2025 Prakash Chand. ...Appellant. Versus Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. ...Respondents. 3. Arbitration Appeal No.228 of 2025 Kalawati. ...Appellant. Versus Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant : Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent No.1-State. : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge All these appeals arise out of common impugned orders, hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, have been taken up together for adjudication. For 2 convenience, reference hereinafter is made to the lead appeal, i.e. Arbitration Appeal No. 226 of 2025 Learned Divisional Commissioner exercising the powers of the Arbitrator conferred under the National Highways Act, 1956 (‘the Act’), disposed of applications moved by the appellants under Section 3G(5) of the Act vide a common award dated 15.02.2023. The aforesaid award was assailed by the appellants invoking Section 34 of the Act before the learned District Judge. The applications preferred by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act were dismissed under a common judgment dated 24.03.2025. The appellants have now taken recourse to Section 37 of the Act for assailing the award dated 15.02.2023 and the judgment dated 24.03.2025. 2. Respondents acquired the land owned by the appellants for building (four-laning), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway-21 on the stretch of land from KM 82.000 to KM 134.500 (Kiratpur- Bilaspur section) in revenue estate Taali, Hadbast No.298, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P. The Competent Authority Land Acquisition (‘CALA’) passed Award No.54/2013-14 on 30.11.2013 granting compensation of 3 Rs.21,00,000/- per bigha for revenue estate Taali irrespective of classification. 3. The appellants assailed the award passed by CALA by filing applications under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, before the Divisional Commissioner exercising the power of the Arbitrator under the Act. The appellants raised following issues in their Section 3G(5) applications:-  The appellants are entitled to all the benefits, facilities and compensation as provided by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act of 2013’), which had come into existence on 27.09.2013, i.e. before the announcement of the award on 30.11.2013.  Accordingly, the appellants are also entitled to solatium at 100%.  The lands in question were situated in revenue estate Taali, which is well connected with the roads; all facilities were available with the people in village Taali. Compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- per bigha awarded by CALA for revenue estate Taali was very meagre. 4  In adjoining village Baloh, District Bilaspur, CALA had awarded Rs.35,00,000/- per bigha as compensation for the land acquisition.  The compensation had not been awarded to the appellants for the non-fruit bearing trees and fruit bearing trees. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case record. The points urged for the appellants before the learned Arbitrator have been urged by learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals as well. These are being considered hereinafter. 4(i). On the issue of applicability of the Act of 2013, learned Arbitrator held that this new Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Learned Arbitrator noted Section 105(3) of Act of 2013, which provides as under:- “105(3). The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as 5 may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.” It has not been disputed that the National Highways Act, 1956 had been placed at Serial No.7 of Schedule IV of the Act of 2013. In terms of notification dated 28.08.2015, the Act of 2013 was made applicable for the acquisitions under the National Highways Act w.e.f. 01.01.2015. In the instant case, the impugned award was announced by CALA on 30.11.2013, therefore, the learned Arbitrator did not err in holding that the Act of 2013 cannot be applied to the acquisition in question. Learned District Judge justly affirms the aforesaid conclusion drawn by the learned Arbitrator. 4(ii). On the issue of land having been acquired for widening of the road at Rs.35,00,000/- per bigha in adjoining village Baloh, District Bilaspur, learned Arbitrator returned the finding that no evidence was placed on record by the appellants. In fact, admittedly, the entire evidence produced by the appellants before the learned Arbitrator was in Application No.371 of 2020, which included an affidavit of one of the appellants (Sh. Jai Singh) as Ex.PW-1/A, copy of the award No.54/2013-14 dated 20.11.2013 of Mohal Taali 6 as Ex.PW-1/B and copy of award passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 02.01.2020 as Ex.PW-1/C. No evidence was led to prove that village Taali was adjacent to village Baloh. Lands of these two villages, therefore, could not be compared for grant of compensation. For want of evidence, the compensation statedly awarded for acquisition in village Baloh could not have been determined as compensation for village Taali. To determine fair compensation, CALA had considered the sale deeds provided by the landowners, which showed that in 2006, land in Taali was sold at Rs.1 lakh for 1 biswa (a rate equivalent to ₹20 lakhs per bigha). The transaction was for a small tract of land. Allowing for a 10% annual increase over five years, CALA calculated the present value of such land to be ₹30 lakhs per bigha. These sale deeds were accepted as genuine and relevant because they took place before any notification of land acquisition, thus ruling out the possibility that the transactions were intended to artificially inflate land values. CALA recognized that when large areas are acquired, the rates of small plot sales cannot be the sole basis for compensation; necessary deductions must be made to account for differences in size, location, and 7 other relevant factors. Comparing with nearby villages, CALA noted that land in Turnnu, Dagrahan, and Patta had been valued at ₹19 lakhs per bigha, while land in Bharari, which is closer to the highway, was valued at ₹22 lakhs per bigha. Since Taali is further from the highway than Bharari, CALA decided that a 30% deduction from the calculated sale value was appropriate, resulting in a final valuation of ₹21 lakhs per bigha. CALA rejected the use of official circle rates for determining compensation, stating that these did not reflect the true market value of the land. After considering all relevant factors and legal principles, CALA concluded that ₹21 lakhs per bigha was a fair and just compensation for all categories of land being acquired in Taali for the highway project. In the given facts and based on the evidence on record, the learned Arbitrator rightly relied upon the previous award passed by her for determining the market value of the land of revenue estate Taali and, on that basis, enhanced the market value of the appellants’ acquired land to ₹24,68,760/- per bigha, irrespective of the classification of the land. The learned District Judge has also rightly not 8 interfered with the aforesaid determination of the market value of the land. 4(iii). On the issue of solatium, learned Arbitrator relied upon Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh1, wherein Section 3J of the National Highways Act had been declared as unconstitutional to the extent it debarred the applicability of Land Acquisition Act and further held that provisions of Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest will be applicable to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Learned Arbitrator held the appellants entitled to all statutory benefits. No submissions were made in this regard by learned counsel for the appellants. 4(iv). The fourth issue raised by the appellants before the learned Arbitrator pertained to valuation of the trees. Learned Arbitrator in her award has returned factual finding that no evidence was produced by the appellants on the aforesaid aspect. This has been affirmed by the learned District Judge while rejecting the application moved by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents placed on record a supplementary Award 1 AIR 2019 SC 4689 9 No.54/1 of 2013-14 dated 09.06.2014, whereunder compensation has been awarded for houses/structures, fruit bearing trees and also non-fruit bearing trees in village Taali, Hadbast No.298, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur. It was for the appellants to seek appropriate proceedings and relief, in case, they were aggrieved by the aforesaid supplementary award. 4(v). The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal under Section 37 of the Act only reiterate the objections/grounds urged by the appellants before the learned Arbitrator. In my considered view, the applications of the appellants moved under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act have been decided by the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law. Learned District Judge also did not err in dismissing the objection petitions preferred by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act. It is now well-settled that the scope of an Appellate Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act to review the findings in an award is narrow and limited, particularly if the award has been upheld under Section 34 of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 37 is akin to that under Section 34 of the Act. The 10 arbitral awards cannot be interfered with in a casual or cavalier manner. [Reference: NHAI vs. Sri P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah & Anr.2 and NHAI vs. M. Hakeem & Anr.3]. The appellants have not made out any case for interference with the award passed by the learned Arbitrator as affirmed by learned District Judge. No other point was urged. 5. In view of above, there is no merit in these appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 20th June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep) 2 (2022) 15 SCC 1 3 (2021) 9 SCC 1