Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030000042026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Arb.A./3/2026 National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) and Anr. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, represented by Managing Director (P), 3rd floor, PTI Building, 4 Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001 2: The General Manager (P) NHIDC VERSUS Sh. B. Pazawna and Anr. R/o N. Chhimluang, Kolasib District, Mizoram 2:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisitio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : H Lalthanchama for R1 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 03-06-2026 Heard Mr. Kartik Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 (CALA). 2. The appellants have put to challenge the impugned Judgment & Order Page No.# 2/8 dated 17.10.2025, passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, by which the appellant’s appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vide Arbitration Petition No. 7/2024 has been dismissed. 3. The appellants’ counsel submits that the land of the respondent No. 1 had been acquired vide an Award under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act). The land of the respondent No. 1, which was covered by a Village Council Pass issued for agricultural purposes, had no structures standing upon it. Compensation was given to the respondent No. 1 only for crops and trees and no compensation was given for the land, inasmuch as, the title to the land remained with the Government. There was no structures standing on the land of the respondent No. 1 at the time of the freezing order dated 01.06.2020, issued by the Government of Mizoram. Only after compensation had been paid to the respondent No. 1 for the crops and trees, did the respondent No. 1 submit an application dated 15.09.2023 before the learned Arbitrator stating that 4 (four) structures stood on his land, for which compensation had not been provided to him. As per the application submitted by the respondent No. 1 which is in vernacular, the 4 (four) structures that were standing on his land were: (i) go-down, (ii) one Assam type Chokidar’s house, (3) one latrine and (4) one small house. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the sketch map made by the respondent No. 2 (CALA) in respect of the land of the respondent No. 1, prior to payment of compensation and the Award made under 3G on 12.05.2022, showed that there were no structures standing on the land of the appellants. However, during the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator, a joint inspection was carried out on 03.05.2024, wherein the following structures Page No.# 3/8 were found:- i) RCC Godown (248 sq.m) ii) Assam Type (4 sq.m) iii) Assam Type (13.69 sq.m) iv) Godown RCC Flooring (187.86 sq.m) v) Assam Type (14.8 sq.m) 5. The learned Arbitrator thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants, closed the arbitration proceedings and directed the respondent No. 2 to make an assessment of the 5 (five) structures mentioned above for payment of compensation to the respondent No. 1. The same was done by the respondent No. 2 (CALA). He submits that the action of the learned Arbitrator, in not giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants before disposing of the arbitration proceedings, is a patent illegality which strikes at the root of the matter. 6. Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that in terms of the letter No. C.17029/1/2023-DC(K)/22 dated 12.02.2024, issued by the respondent No. 2 to the learned Arbitrator, there were no structures or buildings on the land of the respondent No. 1, at the time Transys Consultancy conducted a verification of the respondent No. 1’s land and at the time to land acquisition plan map was made on 03.05.2021 at the behest of respondent No. 2. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits Page No.# 4/8 that the Arbitral Award and the impugned judgment and order of the learned Civil Court, dismissing the challenge to the Arbitral Award, should not be interfered with. In this respect, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Jain Vs. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) A/o SLP(C) No. 14529/2023, which was disposed of on 18.12.2025. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 further submits that it was due to the fact that the respondent No. 2 had not assessed the structures on the land of the respondent No. 1 for compensation that the respondent No. 1 had to approach the Arbitrator for compensation. Futher, vide application/representation dated 15.09.2023, when it has been proved by a joint inspection on 03.05.2024 that the 5 structures were existing on the land of the respondent No. 1, there was no infirmity with the decision of the learned Arbitrator to direct payment of compensation to the respondent No. 1 for the 5 structures. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. In the case of Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI), reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131, the Supreme Court held that the expression ‘patent illegality’ includes a glaring evident illegality that goes to the root of the Award, which includes an Award so unreasonable or irrational that it manifest an error on its face. 11. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Jain (Supra), the Supreme Court held that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act mandates a narrow lens of supervisory Page No.# 5/8 jurisdiction to set aside an Arbitral Award, strictly on the ground and parameters enumerated in Sub-section 2 & 3 of Section 34. It held that a Arbitral Award can be interfered with, where a finding is based on no evidence or is patently illegal and ignores vital evidence while coming to a decision. 12. In the present case, the learned Arbitrator, while disposing of the arbitration proceedings has held at para 5 of the Arbitral Award/Order dated 05.06.2024, that hearing was not found necessary and has thereafter, directed the respondent No. 2 to make assessment of the compensation payable to respondent No. 1. The impugned Arbitral Award/Order dated 05.06.2024 is reproduced herein below as follows: “ARBITRATOR Land Acquisition- MORTH (GOVT. OF INDIA) (State: Mizoram. Revenue Districts: Kolasib) ARBITRAL ORDER U/S 3G (5) & (7) OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT. 1956 1. Applicants: Shri B. Pazawna, N. Chhimluang, Kolasib District: Arbitration Case No. NH-306/KLB/14/Arb-2023 CALA: Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District Date of Arbitral orders: 05/06/2024 1. A petition pertaining to the issue arising out of lands acquired for the purpose of strengthening and widening of NH-306 Kolasib District is received from Shri B. Pazawna, N. Chhimluang, Kolasib District on 15/09/2023 who is aggrieved with the award and decided to seek remedy through the Arbitrator appointed as such to deal with the matters. The facts of the case are briefly given in the following paragraph (s). 2. Pursuance to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) Govt. of India intention to acquire lands for widening and strengthening of NH-306, Revenue Department, Govt. of Mizoram issued Land Freezing Order on 1/6/20 ie. new allotment of land, mutation, transfer and construction etc. were freezed. Page No.# 6/8 Whereas, CALA, Kolasib was asked to clarify as to why the buildings/assets of the Petitioner were not included in the 3G and submit Onus of Proof that construction was done after issue of Freezing Order. 3. Further to have a clear picture of the case and for fair and just application of Imind an Interim Order was issued on 27/3/24 for Joint Spot Verification with all concerned parties. 4. Pursuance to the Interim Order, Joint Spot Verification was carried out by CALA, Kolasib on 3/5/24. As per the report the following structures were standing at their same location before land freezing notification was published. i) RCC Godwen (248 sq.m) ii) Assam Type (4 sq.m) iii) Assam Type (13.69 sq.m.) iv) Godown RCC Flooring (187.86 sq.m v) Assam Type (14.8 sq.m) 5. Owing to above and as the petitioner is satisfied with the joint inspection and feels that hearing is not found necessary. CALA. Kolasib will make assessment of the above structure as per PWD S.O.R. 2019 with service charges and other entitled relie within 1 (one) month from receipt of this Arbitral Order. NHIDCL (acquiring agency) shall complete disbursement of compensation within 3 (three) months from the date of receiving the assessment from CALA, Kolasib. 6. Charge of Arbitration cost amounting to Rs.2,000/- (two thousand only) is payable by the petitioner of Case No. NH-306/KLB/14/Arb-23 7. This Arbitral Order is issued today 5th June, 2024. (K. LALRINZUALI) Arbitrator-LA (Mizoram) MMORTH 1. Shri B. Pazawna N. Chhimluang Kolasib District. 2. Competent Authority for Land Acquisition-CALA Kolasib District (Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District)” Page No.# 7/8 13. Not giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants before disposing of the arbitration proceedings is not only patently illegal, but also goes to the very root of the matter, inasmuch as, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 were not given any opportunity to question the correctness of the time period when the five (5) structures were constructed by the respondent No. 1. It is clear from the application/representation dated 15.09.2023 submitted by the respondent No. 1 to the learned Arbitrator that only four (4) structures were standing on his land. On the other hand, the Inspection Report dated 03.05.2024, made on the orders of the learned Arbitrator, speaks of five (5) structures existing on the land of the respondent No. 1. No decision has been made by the learned Arbitrator as to when the said structures were built by the respondent No. 1 and whether it was there at the time the respondent No. 2 and its agency had conducted a verification of the land of the respondent No. 1. This shows that the learned Arbitrator has failed to take into account vital matters leading to an unjust result, besides going beyond the issue raised by the respondent No. 1 in his application/representation dated 15.09.2023. The learned Arbitrator has violated the principles of natural justice and in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court and in terms of Section 34 Sub-section (2A) of the Arbitration Act, the Award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the Award. 14. For the reasons stated above, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 7/2024 and the Arbitral Order/Award dated 05.06.2024, are hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Arbitrator to give opportunity of hearing, not only the appellant herein, but also to the other parties, prior to disposing of the arbitral proceedings afresh. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Send back the TCR and the records of Page No.# 8/8 the learned Arbitrator, if any. JUDGE Comparing Assistant