Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030001522026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Arb.A./8/2026 National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) and Anr. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Government of India represented by Managing Director (P) NHIDCL HQ First Floor Tower A World Trade Center Nauroji Nagar New Delhi-110029 2: The General Manager (P) NHIDCL TBC Villa College Veng Near District Court Kolasib Mizoram - 796161 VERSUS Sh. T.K. Thanga and Anr. R/o Rengtekawn Kolasib District 2:Competent Authority for Land Acquisition Kolasib District Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Mr J C Lalnunsanga for R1 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/52/2026 National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) and Anr. Page No.# 2/8 Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, represented by Managing Director (P), NHIDCL HQ, First Floor, Tower A, World Trade Center, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi-110029 2: The General Manager (P VERSUS Sh. T.K. Thanga and Anr. R/o Rengtekawn, Kolasib District 2:Competent Authority for Land Acquisitio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Mr J C Lalnunsanga for R1 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. S. Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the impugned judgment dated 03/11/2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib, Mizoram, in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, upholding the Arbitral Award dated 03.06.2025. 3. The matter pertains to the payment of compensation for an additional 1257 trees to the respondent no. 1, growing on the land of the respondent No. Page No.# 3/8 1, on which the NHIDCL was going to construct a road. In this respect, the Competent Authority For Land Acquisition, Kolasib District (respondent No. 2), had issued an Award under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, for payment of compensation to the respondent No. 1 for acquiring 743 trees on 03/12/2024. 4. Being aggrieved by the fact that the 3G Award had left out 1257 trees, the respondent no. 1 took recourse to Section 3G (5) of the Act, for considering the claim of the respondent by an Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator thereafter registered the claim of the respondent no. 1 as Arbitration Case No. NH/306/KLB/28/ARB/2025 and after hearing the parties, passed Arbitral Award dated 03/06/2025, wherein it directed reassessment and payment of compensation for an additional 1257 Areca/Betel Nut trees, beyond the 743 trees that had already been included in the Award made under 3G. 5. The Arbitrator in his Arbitral Award dated 03.06.2025, had held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be paid compensation for 2000 trees instead of only 743 trees, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2, i.e. the competent authority for land acquisition (CALA), Kolasib District had admitted it’s mistake made in awarding compensation for only 743 trees and had affirmed that the Betel Nut trees for which compensation was to be paid was 2000. As such, the respondent No. 2 was directed to assess the amount of compensation payable for the additional 1257 full-grown Betel Nut trees, as per the rate notified by the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram. The interest @9% was also to be paid in terms of Section 3H(5) of the NH Act, 1956. 6. The appellant (NHIDCL) being aggrieved by the Arbitral Award dated 03/06/2025, put the same to challenge under Section 34 of the Act before the Page No.# 4/8 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib, where it was registered as Arbitration Petition no. 2/2025. 7. Arbitration Petition no. 2/2025 was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 03/11/2025 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, by directing the NHIDCL to disburse the assessed amount of compensation for the additional 1257 full-grown Betel Nut/Areca Nut trees with statutory benefits, in terms of the Arbitral Award, within one month from 03/11/2025. 8. The NHIDCL thereafter filed an application, vide CMA no. 4/2026, in the disposed of Arbitration Petition no. 2/2025, before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, by making the following prayers:- "(a) Grant of extension of time to the applicant to comply with the payment direction contained in order dated 03/11/2025, and (b) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 9. The learned Additional District And Sessions Judge, Kolasib, thereafter passed order dated 24/02/2026 in CMA no. 4/2026, as follows:- "Upon consideration of the submissions, this Court finds it proper to pass order as below: 1) Extension of time prayed for by the applicant is granted for a period of 30 days as per section 148 CPC, 1908. 2) In case of failure to comply with order passed by this Court dated 03.11.2025 by NHIDCL, the law will take its own course. Page No.# 5/8 3) The applicant-NHIDCL is directed to submit the report about compliance of the said order dated 03.11.2025 on or before 01.04.2026. Fix 01.04.2026 for submission of compliance report by NHIDCL. Give copy of this Order to all concerned." 10. In view of the order dated 24/02/2026 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, in CMA No. 4/2026, arising out of the disposed of Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, whereby 30 days extension of time had been granted for making payment, in terms of the judgement and order dated 03/11/2025 passed in Arbitration petition No. 2/2025, the counsel for the respondent no. 1 prayed for withdrawal of Execution Petition No. 1/2026 arising ouf of Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, with liberty to file the same afresh, in case NHIDCL failed to make the necessary payment. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, vide order dated 24/02/2026, allowed the withdrawal of Execution Petition No. 1/2026 with liberty to file afresh, if the situation demanded. 11. The appellant has now approached this court, by way of this appeal under Section 37 of the Act and prayed for setting aside the order dated 03.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Kolasib in Arbitration Petition No. 2 of 2025 and to also set aside the Arbitral Award dated 03.06.2025, passed in NH/306/KLB/28/ARB/2025. 12. The main grounds of appeal is that the learned Arbitrator and the Civil Court had allowed the claim of the respondent No. 1 without any assessment or evidence, especially when the Data Deli report dated 18.02.2026, based on high-resolution satellite imagery of the plantation area, established that only Page No.# 6/8 624 Betel Nut trees could have stood on the land of the respondent No. 1. The appellants’ case is that for a Betel Nut tree to grow, it requires 2.8 sq. meters space on either side and each row also required a space of 2.8 meters. Thus, each tree would consume 7.84 sq. meters of space. Since the land of the respondent No. 1 was aggregating 4891.52 sq. meters, the land of the respondent No. 1 could at best accommodate only 624 trees. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that the appellants cannot bring new facts in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. When the appellants have accepted the Arbitral Award and also the decision of the Civil Court, by making an application, i.e. CMA No. 4/2026 in March 2026, praying for extension of time to make the payment to the respondent No. 1, which was allowed by the learned Civil Court, they cannot be now allowed to turn around and challenge the Civil Court order and the Arbitral Award. 14. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 15. The applicant/appellant (NHIDCL) has now approached this Court against the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib under Section 37 of the Act and thereby also made a challenge to the Arbitral Award dated 03.06.2025. 16. The basic challenge made by the appellant to the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, is to the effect that 2000 trees could not stand/fit into the land of the respondent no. 1, as per the satellite imagery, which it had received on 18.02.2026, i.e. after disposal of Page No.# 7/8 Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025. 17. This Court is of the view that the appellant cannot make a challenge to the Arbitral Award and the impugned Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Court, by bringing into issue a new fact, which was allegedly known to the appellant only on 18.02.2026. The same was never an issue before the learned Arbitrator or the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Act. A new fact cannot be brought to be considered under Section 37 of the Act, inasmuch as, it is settled law that an appeal under Section 37 is to be governed by the scope and grounds provided under Section 34 of the Act only. This Court cannot re-appreciate evidence as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Mas Entertainment Ltd. Vs. V.J.M Combines, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 698. The new ground sought to be raised in this appeal was never raised before the Arbitrator or the Civil Court. It is also not an issue with regard to patent illegality. The new facts were never an issue earlier. This Court cannot reopen a closed and decided issue, in the manner sought to be done by appellants. Further, as stated earlier, the appellant (NHIDCL) had filed CMA No. 4/2026 before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge Kolasib, praying for extension of time to make payment of the compensation to the respondent No. 1, pursuant to the impugned judgment and order. The appellant cannot now be allowed to turn around and abuse the process of the Court. It cannot be allowed to blow “hot and cold”, as per it’s fancy. There is nothing in this appeal which comes within the grounds under Section 34 of the Act. 18. In view of the reasons stated above, there is no ground to entertain the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Page No.# 8/8 JUDGE Comparing Assistant