Page No.# 1/14 GAHC030000062026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Arb.A./4/2026 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 Smt. Lalrindiki Hmar and Anr. D/o K. Kawlchungnunga, represented by Smt. Lalfakawmi, R/o Vairengte-II, Kolasib District, Mizoram 2:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisitio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubam Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : H Lalthanchama for R1 Page No.# 2/14 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. Kartik Jain, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. No one appears for the respondent No. 2. 2. The appellants have put to challenge the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib, by which the appellants appeal against the Arbitral Award dated 14.06.2024 under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, herein after referred to as the Arbitration Act, in Arbitration Petition No. 8/2024, has been dismissed. 3. The appellants case is that the land of the respondent No. 1 covered by Periodic Patta No. 501501/10/208/2004, had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, herein after referred to as the ‘NH Act’. The respondent No. 2 (CALA), vide Award dated 12.05.2022 issued under 3G of the NH Act, provided, for payment of compensation for the acquired land, including three structures that were standing on the acquired land of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 being aggrieved with the market rate fixed by respondent No. 2 (CALA) for the compensation payable for the acquired land and also with the fact that the respondent No. 2 had provided Page No.# 3/14 compensation for only three structures on his land, though there were five structures, filed a representation for enhancement of the market rate and payment of compensation for the 2 unpaid structures, under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act sometime in the month of October 2023. 4. The learned Arbitrator thereafter passed Arbitral Award dated 14.06.2024 in Arbitration Case No. NH-306/KLB/18/ARB-2023, by enhancing market value of the land of the respondent No. 1 from Rs. 85/- to Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. It also allowed the prayer of the respondent No. 1 for payment of compensation for the two structures, which did not find mention in the Award made by respondent No. 2 (CALA) under Section 3G of the NH Act. 5. The appellants being aggrieved with the enhancement of the market value of the land and the inclusion of the two additional structures for payment of compensation by the impugned Arbitral Award dated 14.06.2024, submitted an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib. The same was registered as Arbitration Petition No. 8/2024. The learned Civil Court thereafter, vide Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2025, dismissed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, by holding that the enhancement of the market value of land belonging to the respondent No. 1 had been done by taking into consideration the prevailing market value of the land within the district based upon relevant sale deeds, location, inflation of prices, which was reasonable. However, the learned Civil Court did not make any discussion or finding Page No.# 4/14 with regard to the learned Arbitrator awarding compensation of the two additional structures in the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Court. 6. The appellants being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Civil Court in Arbitration Petition No. 8/2024, have filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that a notification under Section 3A of the NH Act was issued on 21.05.2021, while the Award under 3G had been made on 12.05.2022. He submits that the Award has been made on the basis of the Land Acquisition Plan (Final) (Drawing & Schedule) dated 01.10.2021. In the said drawing, there are two structures mentioned standing on the land of the respondent No. 1. As ‘A Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956’ provides at Clause 10(iv) that market value of land is to be determined as on the date publication of the preliminary Notification under Section 3A of the NH Act, any improvement undertaken over the land notified under Section 3A, after publication of the said notification in order to enhance the quantum of compensation, was to be ignored by CALA. He accordingly submits that when the Land Acquisition Plan dated 01.10.2021 did not show the existence of structures beyond two structures on the land of the respondent No. 1, there was no justification for either the respondent No. 2 or the learned Arbitrator to have awarded compensation, for more structures than what was reflected in the Land Acquisition Plan. Page No.# 5/14 8. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the enhancement of the market value/compensation for land from Rs. 85/- to Rs. 100/- per sq.ft by the learned Arbitrator has been made without any basis. There is no determination made by the learned Arbitrator in terms of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short “RFCTLARR Act, 2013), to have enabled the learned Arbitrator, to enhance the compensation amount. The same being a patent illegality on the face of the Award under Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act, the enhancement of the market/land value is not sustainable. He accordingly submits that the impugned Arbitral Award dated 14.06.2024 and the impugned Judgment & Award dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Court of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib have to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the appellants have not made any challenge to the Award made under 3G of the NH Act, wherein, compensation has been given for three structures on the land of the respondent No. 1. He also submits that no written objection or affidavit has been filed by the appellants before the learned Arbitrator during arbitration proceedings, with regard to the prayer made by the respondent No. 1 for enhancement of his compensation amount (market value of the acquired land) and for payment of compensation for the additional two structures, which had been left out by the respondent No. 2 (CALA) in his Award made under 3G. Page No.# 6/14 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that proper reasons had been given by the learned Arbitrator for enhancing the compensation amount payable for the land. 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 12. There are basically two issues to be decided. The first issue is, as to whether the learned Arbitrator could have awarded compensation for the two structures, which were not a part of the Award under Section 3G of the NH Act. Secondly, whether the learned Arbitrator could have enhanced the land/market value of the respondent No. 1’s land. 13. As is discernible from the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and the documents, a spot verification was conducted on the land of the respondent No. 1, pursuant to an interim order passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. NH-306/KLB/18/Arb-2023, to verify whether there were five structures on the land of the respondent No. 1. The spot verification was conducted on 14.03.2024 in the presence of representatives of the appellants, the Government, the Village Council and the land owners and the report dated 09.05.2024 states at paragraph Nos. 3, 4 & 5 as follows:- “3. On arriving at the site, five (5) structures such as Assam Type with RCC flooring, Godown RCC flooring (a), Godown RCC flooring (b), Godown RCC flooring (c) and cattle shed were found to be standing at the said location and they were assumed to have been built before the land freezing notification. Page No.# 7/14 4. Out of these five (5) structures, the three structures namely- Assam Type with RCC flooring (48.76 sqm), Godown CC flooring (95.48 sqm) and cattle shed (7.4 sqm) have been already compensated and disbursement of the money is already made to the complainant. Therefore, the structures Godown RCC flooring (238.76 sqm) and Godown RCC flooring (44.1 sam) are yet to be included in the 3G and the compensation award will be determined accordingly. 5. The measurement of the building was taken and recorded and the market value will be determined accordingly.” 14. The learned Arbitrator in his Arbitral Award thereafter held at paragraph No. 7 as follows: “7. The outcome of the spot verification conducted pursuance to the Interim Order dt 4/12/23 is that 5 structures were actually standing before the freezing order and that only 3 structures were assessed and compensated.” 15. Though there appears to be some ambiguity with the spot verification report and the Arbitral Award, inasmuch as, the spot verification report states that the five structures were assumed to have been built before the land freezing notification under Section 3A of the NH Act, the Arbitral Award states that the five structures were actually standing before the freezing order and only three structures were compensated. The above is a disputed question of fact, which has been answered by the learned Arbitrator. There is nothing in the Land Acquisition Plan dated 01.10.2021 showing that there were five structures or even three structures standing on the land. However, the respondent No. 2 had awarded compensation for three structures Page No.# 8/14 standing on the acquired land of the respondent No. 1 in the Award made under 3G. The above clearly shows that the Land Acquisition Plan was not the basis for awarding compensation for the three structures by respondent No. 2 (CALA) in his Award made under Section 3G. As such, it cannot be said that the Land Acquisition Plan made on 01.10.2021 had listed out all the structures that were on the land of the respondent No. 1. Though there is some ambiguity as to whether all the structures were there at the time of the freezing order made under Section 3A of the NH Act, the learned Arbitrator has taken a decision on the said issue. Keeping in view the fact that the Land Acquisition Plan cannot be used to determine whether there were two, three or five structures standing on the land of the respondent No. 1, at the relevant point of time, i.e., at the time of issuance of the freezing order, the decision of the learned Arbitrator would have to be accepted by this Court. It has to be kept in mind that the appellants never challenged the Award made under Section 3(G) by the respondent No. 2, where it provided compensation for three structures, even though the Land Acquisition Plan of the land of the respondent No. 1 showed only two structures as per the stand taken by the appellants. Accordingly, when a spot verification has been conducted, proving the existence of five structures on the land of the respondent No. 1, the decision of the learned Arbitrator on facts cannot be challenged in this Section 37 appeal. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Jain Vs. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) in SLP(C) No. 14529 of 2023, held that if there is some evidence, even a single witness testimony or set of documents, on Page No.# 9/14 which the Arbitrator can rely upon or has relied upon to arrive at his conclusion, the Court cannot regard the conclusion drawn by the Arbitrator as patently illegal, merely because that evidence has less probative value. This thin line is crossed only when the Arbitrator’s conclusion cannot be reconciled with any permissible view of the evidence. 16. In the case of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Anr. Vs. M/S Sanman Rice Mills & Ors. in SLP(C) No. 27699 of 2018, wherein the Supreme Court was to decide an issue pertaining to an Arbitrator’s Award under the Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court held that even if two views are possible, there is no scope for the Court to reappraise the evidence and to take different view other than that taken by the Arbitrator. The view taken by the Arbitrator is normally acceptable and ought to be allowed to prevail. 17. Keeping in view the fact that the basis for the appellants challenge to the Award of compensation to the additional two structures is based upon the Land Acquisition Plan, which does not even show the existence of three structures standing on the respondent No. 1’s land and the fact that the spot verification report dated 09.05.2024 shows that five structures were standing on the land of the respondent No. 1, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the learned Arbitrator in awarding compensation for the additional two structures. Further, the respondent No. 1’s challenge to the Award was that the respondent No. 2 had forgotten to award compensation for two other structures. No representation would have been for the additional structures by the respondent No. 1, if the same were not in existence. Page No.# 10/14 18. The Arbitral Award shows that the market value of the land of respondent No. 1 has been made by the respondent No. 2 (CALA), on the basis of sale deeds and rates of land relating to various localities within Kolasib town, which is the district capital of Kolasib district. The sale deeds in respect of rates of land in Thingdawl village, which is around 10 minutes away from Kolasib town by car, was also considered by Respondent No. 2 (CALA). The land of the respondent No. 1 is however located in Vairengte village, which is a very small and under-developed settlement, compared to Kolasib town. However, the market value of the land of the respondent No. 1 has been enhanced by the learned Arbitrator from Rs. 85 to Rs. 100 per Sq. feet, in the absence of any sale deed or rates of land fixed by any individual or authority in Vairengte. The learned Arbitrator, in his Arbitral Award, has basically observed the manner in which the land of the respondent No. 1 has been fixed by the respondent No. 2 (CALA). The learned Arbitrator has also spoken of Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator in paragraph No. 10.8 of the Award dated 12.05.2022 has held that the market value of the respondent No. 1’s land should be enhanced from Rs. 85/- to Rs. 100/- per sq.ft by stating as follows: “10.8 In the final analysis and considering the need for adoption of proper method of assessment of land value for determining prominent and developed settlement prime area in and around Kolasib is normally to be determined as per Explanation 2 to Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Land acquisition for the NH-306 is in the area of bypass area mostly non-settlement and virgin areas which is away from the main prominent areas. It cannot be regarded as the Page No.# 11/14 most prominent locality to be bracketed with the highest market value. Owners of low graded land are subjected to suffer more in a matter of 12 inches of land if it falls into the demarcation zone. The grading system is rationalised for simplicity and pragmatism essentially to remove anomalistic classification to the detriment of some areas though they are lesser than 5-kilometre distance to each other. CALA predominantly gave high factor to commercialisation of the area. It is relevant to consider several other crucial criteria such as the agricultural garden/farm in non-settlement areas and importantly Vairengte, Kolasib District is the Gateway to the State of Mizoram where CIW School is established, Taxation & Supply Check Gate & Enforcement Check Gate and other Govt. Department are set up.” 19. The learned Arbitrator has not quoted any rate or figure of the lands adjacent to the land of the respondent No. 1 to be the basis for enhancement of the market value of the land. No sale deed or document showing any rates of land in Vairengte, has been considered by the learned Arbitrator for enhancing the land of the respondent No. 1. Further, Vairengte, though notified as a town, is basically a border village and the sale deeds pertaining to Kolasib town in Kolasib District cannot truly reflect the market value of the land in Vairengte, which would be of lesser value. Nevertheless, the respondent No. 1 is lucky that the respondent No. 2 (CALA) has awarded compensation on the basis of land rates pertaining to Kolasib town and Thingdawl to the land of the respondent No. 1 in Vairengte. 20. The land of the respondent No. 1 is in a non-residential area of Vairengte and adjacent to the National Highway. It is interesting to note that the learned Arbitrator Page No.# 12/14 has also enhanced the residential/habitant area/developed area of the Vairengte from Rs. 106/- to Rs. 120 per sq.ft, without there being any reference with regard to the said land before the learned Arbitrator. It has however not touched the market rate of the non-settlement areas of the Vairengte, which is at Rs. 64/- per sq.ft. 21. There has to be a discussion on the specific land rates of the area adjacent to the land of the respondent No. 1, which is conspicuously absent. The absence of reasons for enhancing market value of land is absent on the face of the Arbitral Award. There can be no two views with regard to the fact that there is no discussion or finding made by the learned Tribunal in his Arbitral Award, about specific market rates of lands in Vairengte, as a reason/basis for enhancing the market rate of the respondent No. 1’s land. 22. This Court is well aware that the scope of interference with Arbitral proceedings or the Award is very limited and has to be confined within the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI), reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131, 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. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Jain (Supra), the Supreme Court held that Page No.# 13/14 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. 23. In the present case, there being no specific rates of land adjacent to the land of the respondent No. 1 being discussed by the learned Arbitrator, there was no basis for the learned Arbitrator to have enhanced the market rate of the land of the respondent No. 1, over and above, the rate fixed by the respondent No. 2. The Arbitral Award on this aspect is found to be without any basis or reason. 24. In view of the above reasons, the Arbitrator’s Award dated 14.06.2024 is set aside only to the extent that the market value of the land of the respondent No. 1 has been enhanced from Rs. 85/- to Rs. 100/- per sq.ft., as the same is found to be patently illegal in terms of Section 34 (2A) of the Arbitration Act. The challenge to awarding compensation for the additional two structures by the learned Arbitrator however fails and the Arbitral Award providing compensation for the two structures on the land of the respondent No. 1 is not interfered with by this Court. 25. Send back the records. Page No.# 14/14 JUDGE Comparing Assistant