Page No.# 1/10 GAHC030000022026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Arb.A./1/2026 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. R.K. Rosangliana and 8 Ors. R/o Vairengte 2:Sh. J.H. Biakmawia 3:Sh. T. Lalbiaktluanga 4:Smt. Lalrindiki Hmar 5:Sh. B. Lalnuntluanga 6:Smt. M. Zohmingthangi 7:Sh. T. Khumtira 8:Sh. K. Lianhmingthanga 9:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisitio Page No.# 2/10 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga for R9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. Kartik Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Banjamin Lalthlamuana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5 to 8 and Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 9. 2. The appellants have put to challenge the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.11.2025, passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib in Arbitration Petition No. 3/2024, by which the appellants appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act, challenging the dismissal of the Arbitral Award, has been dismissed. 3. The appellants’ case is that the land of the respondents had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the NH Act, by issuing an Award under Section 3G of the NH Act. As the private respondents were not satisfied with the compensation awarded to them by respondent No. 9, the respondents approached the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. The Arbitrator enhanced the compensation amount awarded to the private respondents, without there being any evidence or basis for enhancement of the compensation amount. He submits that the same amounts to a patent illegality in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ssangyong Engineering Page No.# 3/10 and Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI), reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the enhancement of the compensation amount on the market value of the land has been made by the learned Arbitrator, without there being any finding that the assessment by the respondent No. 9 (CALA) was incorrect. The learned Arbitrator has also enhanced the compensation amount in respect of lands, which were not the subject matter of the dispute in the arbitration proceeding. He submits that while the private respondents’ lands were located in Vairengte town and North Chhimluang village, which was a Grade B town & Grade C village respectively, the Arbitrator besides enhancing Grade B town and Grade C villages, had also enhanced the market value of Grade A localities in Kolasib town and other District headquarters, which were not the subject matter in issue in the Arbitration Proceeding. The learned counsel thus submits that the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.11.2025, passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib and the Arbitral Award dated 28.03.2024 should be set aside. 5. Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 8 submits that the learned Arbitrator has based his enhancement of the market value of the lands of the respondents, on the basis of a Sale Deed dated 03.09.2021 in respect of land and building sold in Vairengte village. The area of the land was 239.76 sq.mtr. He accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the learned Arbitrator enhancing the compensation amount, in respect of the private respondents’ land located in Vairengte town and North Chhimluang village, in terms of the Sale Deed dated 03.09.2021. He accordingly submits that as the decision of the learned Arbitrator has also been upheld by the Civil Court, the present appeal should be dismissed. Page No.# 4/10 6. Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 9, submits that the respondent No. 9 (CALA) had determined the market value of the lands of the respondents by considering 150 registered Sale Deeds pertaining to Kolasib town area, inasmuch as, there were no Sale Deeds for determining the market value of the land in Vairengte town and North Chhimluang village during the time of making the Award under Section 3G of the NH Act. He submits that prior to submission of the 3G revised estimate on 12.05.2022, the following exercise had been undertaken by CALA:- i. Publication of '3A' notifications at SN-(1) above, in two local newspapers. ii. Hearing of Objections u/s '3C for a period of 21 days from the publication of Section 3A in 2 local newspapers & disposal by CALA vide Memo No F.15012/4/2021- DC(K)/255 dated 24.06. 2021. iii. Publication of Section 3D' notification in two local newspapers namely, "Vanglaini" dated 26/05/2021, and "Vairengte Aw" dated 01/06/2021. ` iv. Notice for inviting objections within 15 days from publication of the Section'3D' notification vide Memo No. F.15012/4/2021-DC(K)/345dated 21.12.2021, as per Annexure 3.2 of manual of Guidelines by MORTH. 7. As can be seen from the records, the market rate fixed by the respondent No. 9, for acquiring the lands of the private respondents had been done on the basis of 150 registered Sale Deeds, pertaining to localities within Kolasib town and other District headquarters. The lands of the private respondents which were located in Vairengte town and North Chhimluang village were given the benefit of the rates fixed for Kolasib town, which is a Grade-A town. As per the records, Vairengte is a Grade B notified town, while North Chhimluang is a Grade C village. The rates fixed by CALA for Grade A, B & C towns and villages are as follows:- Page No.# 5/10 Category Location Package Rate (Rs./Sq.ft) Remarks Grade A (Kolasib Town/Distrcit Headquarters) Residential/habita t area (i) Gosen Veng, Bawktlang, Rengtekawn, Tuitha Veng, Venglai East, Diakkawn, New Diakkawn, Khuangpuilam, Thingdawl 4 & 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Rs. 133 Non-residential area but adjacent to National Highway (ii) Rs. 106 20% decrease from (i) Non settlement/bypas s area (iii) Rs. 80 25% decrease from (ii) Grade B (Notified Towns) Residential/habita t area (iv) Bilkhawthlir Bualpui Kawnpui Vairengte 4 6 6 3 Rs. 106 20% decrease from (i) Non –residential area but adjacent to National Highway (v) Rs. 85 20% decrease from (iv) Non settlement bypass area (vi) Rs. 64 25% decrease from (v) GRADE C (other Villages) Residential/habita t area (vii) N. Chhimluang Khamrang Mualkhang 3 & 4 7 7 Rs. 80 25% decrease from (iv) Non-residential area but adjacent to National Highway (viii) Rs. 64 20% decrease from (vii) Non settlement/ bypass area (ix) Rs. 48 25 % decrease from (viii) 8. The Arbitrator’s enhanced market rate of land value for compensation are as follows:- Category Location Package Rate (Rs./Sq.ft) Page No.# 6/10 Grade A (Kolasib Town/Distrcit Headquarters) Residential/habita t area (i) Gosen Veng, Bawktlang, Rengtekawn, Tuitha Veng, Venglai East, Diakkawn, New Diakkawn, Khuangpuilam, Thingdawl 4 & 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Rs. 150 Non-residential area but adjacent to National Highway (ii) Rs. 128/- Non settlement/bypass area (iii) Rs. 80/- GradeB (NotifiedTowns) Residential/habita t area (iv) Bilkhawthlir Bualpui Kawnpui Vairengte 4 6 6 3 Rs. 120/- Non –residential area but adjacent to National Highway (v) Rs. 100 Non settlement bypass area (vi) Rs. 64 GRADE C (other Villages) Residential/habita t area (vii) N. Chhimluang Khamrang Mualkhang 3 & 4 7 7 Rs. 90/- Non-residential area but adjacent to National Highway (viii) Rs. 72/- Non settlement/ bypass area (ix) Rs. 48/- 9. As can be seen from the above, there is an increase in the land value made by the learned Arbitrator in respect of all the three grades of lands, even though none of the private respondents had any Grade A land. The Arbitrator has on his own enhanced the land value for Grade-A towns/District headquarters. 10. A reading of the Arbitral Award does not show the basis or reason as to Page No.# 7/10 why there has been enhancement of the rates of lands of the private respondents. The learned Arbitrator has only reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of acquisition of land and there is no discussion or findings made by the learned Arbitrator, as to why the market rates for acquisition has been enhanced. 11. Though the learned counsel for the private respondents has relied upon the Sale Deed dated 03.09.2021, in support of his submission, that the said Sale Deed had been relied upon by the learned Arbitrator to enhance the compensation rate payable to the private respondents, this Court is not convinced with the said submission. The Sale Deed dated 03.09.2021 is for sale of land and a RCC building covered by LSC/Periodic Patta No. VRT-1 of 1996 located at Bangla Veng, Vairengte, having an area of 239.76 sq.mtrs, for Rs. 65 lakhs. 12. Firstly, there is no mention of the Sale Deed dated 03.09.2021 by the learned Arbitrator in his Arbitral Award. Secondly, the Sale Deed dated 03.09.2021 is not with regard to sale of vacant land, but also of the RCC building standing on the land. In the present case, it is not the case of any of the private respondents herein that their lands have RCC buildings standing on their lands, which were acquired. The Rs. 65 lakhs is not the market price of land only measuring 239.76 sq.mtrs. As such, the same cannot be used to determine the market value of vacant land. Thirdly, if the rate of Rs. 65 lakhs was to be applied as the market value for land measuring 239.76 sq.mtrs, the same would work out to be Rs. 2527/- for one sq.ft., which is not at all the case of private respondents in this appeal or before the learned Arbitrator. Fourthly, when the Sale Deed dated 03.09.2021 pertains to Vairengte town, it is not understood as to how the same can be applied to land pertaining to North Page No.# 8/10 Chhimluang village, which is a small village. 13. There is no reason given by the learned Arbitrator for enhancement of the rate of compensation of the private respondents lands. It is not understood as to how the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which has been quoted in the Award, helped determine the actual monetary value of their land, when there is no reference to market value or sale deed or any documents by the learned Arbitrator, which could be the basis/reason for enhancing the market value of the lands of the private respondents. There is also no observation or finding that the compensation amount received by the respondent No. 9 (CALA) was not correct. Also, the learned Arbitrator has not take into consideration Section 26 of the “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” for enhancing the market value of the land, which had been made by respondent No. 9 (CALA). 14. 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. 15. 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 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. Page No.# 9/10 16. It is settled law that decisions made without reasons are arbitrary. The absence of reasons violates the mandate of Section 31(3) of the Arbitration Act, which requires Arbitral Award to state reasons. In the present case, there is nothing agreed upon between the parties and neither have they agreed that no reasons are to be given in the Arbitral Award. As such, the absence of reasons in the face of the Arbitral Award or in the records, for enhancing the compensation amount, amounts to patent illegality in terms of Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act. 17. In view of the reasons stated above, the Arbitral Award is found to be patently illegal. The impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge Kolasib, in Arbitration Petition No. 3/2025 upholding the Arbitral Award, on false findings, which is not present in the Arbitral Award is found to be perverse and a patent illegality. Para 23 of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.11.2025 states as follows:- “23. In my considered view, enhancement of market value of lands belonging to the respondents/landowners by taking into consideration of the prevailing market value of lands within the district based upon relevant sale deeds, location peculiarity, inflation of prices and location advantage of the land belonging to the respondents is not against the natural justice and is found reasonable. It is opined not to be contrary to the substantive law and not against the public policy of India. Further, it is observed that the learned Arbitrator, Aizawl has discretionary powers but not violating the relevant provisions of law to ignore the rate fixed by the CALA, Kolasib to enhance the market value of land since market value of the lands were mainly fixed on the circumstances of the case/land and no specified fixed rate for each location was officially available. The learned Arbitrator based her findings on judicious Page No.# 10/10 application of mind and it was not contrary to any statutory provisions of law.” 18. As stated earlier, there is nothing in the Arbitral Award to show the reasons or the basis for which the enhancement on the market value of the land has been given by the Arbitrator. In the absence of any sale deed, reasons or documents to enable the learned Arbitrator to enhance the compensation amount, the learned Civil Court committed an error in glossing over the issue, without realizing the fact that there was no specific reason given or document taken into consideration by the learned Arbitrator to enhance the compensation amount. Accordingly, this Court also does not find the impugned judgment passed by the learned Civil Court to be sustainable in law. 19. In view of the reasons stated above, the Arbitral Award dated 28.03.2024, passed in Arbitration Case No. NH-306/KLB/11/ARB-2023 and the Judgment & Order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge Kolasib, in Arbitration Petition No. 3/2025 are hereby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Send back the TCR. JUDGE Comparing Assistant