Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) THE land -owners are aggrieved of the order dated 22.11.2013 vide which the objections filed on behalf of National Highway against the award dated 26.07.2011, has been accepted, in essence, award of competent authority aforementioned, has been set aside.
(2.) MR . Satbir Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Land owner submits that Objecting Court has committed illegality and perversity in setting aside the award by holding that award of the Arbitrator was against the public policy, therefore, objections squarely fell within the parameters of Sec. 34 of the Act. In this regard, he has drawn attention of this Court to the award, whereby, Arbitrator before adjudication of the lis between the parties had sought special report of Circle Revenue Officer and the contents of the report was also extracted. The relevant portion of the award, reads thus: - "On 8/11/2010, both Ld. Counsels, argued the case. Mr. Tarlok Singh and appellant also present. A special report of circle revenue officer was obtained and is placed on file. The report read as: - 1. The acquired land is situated on G.T. Road. 2. As per record mutation in 1999 was entered in the name of Central Govt. 3. The acquired land is near Sanaura Bus Stop. It is of commercial nature and near Sanaura Market. 4. The acquired land is 9 Karam x 6 Karam and measuring 0 K -6 Marla. There was a pucker shop over the land which was demolished by deptt. 5. This land is 1.5 KM away from Bhogpur Town Municipality. Mr. I.S. Bhatia, the Ld. Counsel prays that the matter may be decided as per factual report of the site."
(3.) THE Arbitrator on the basis of aforementioned findings awarded a compensation by taking into consideration the award of Bhogpur District, whereby National Highway paid 5 times of collector rates and assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ - per marla and worked out the compensation as under: - "1. The land price enhanced @ Rs. 1.50 lac per marla 2. Severance of land compensated @ Rs. 1.00 lacs lump sum. 3. The structure compensated @ Rs. 600 per sq. ft. 4. Loss of business compensated @ Rs. 2.00 lacs lump sum. 5. Shifting of structure compensated @ Rs. 20,000/ - lump sum." by assigning the following reasons: - "The price of land/structure enhanced due to the fact: - 1. The land price is enhanced keeping in view the potential of land along the National Highway and the proximity of land to the Tanda Town. 2. The location of land at corner of G.T. Road and Link Road going to Village Sanaura makes it very valuable from commercial point of view. 3. I have visited the spot along with other Revenue Officers and found land near Major Town of Bhogpur. The land is of commercial nature. 4. Enough proof attached by applicant to justify enhancement as especially two reports from Revenue Officers. 5. No counter affidavit/evidence filed by respondents. 6. This price has been based on Arbitrator's order dated 28/1/09 in Dasuya Tehsil already implemented by the NHA -1 based on the remand order of Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 14863 -14864/2008, dated 11/8/2008. 7. As the land between Jalandhar and Pathankot along with National Highway have high commercial potential, therefore, the land owners cannot be deprived of his valuable land without adequately compensating him. 8. Collector rate is the minimum price below which registration of sale deeds are not permitted by the Revenue Authorities but it is never near the market price. LAC -cum - Competent Authority simply awarded Collector rate to land owners and no effort was made to determine market value of the land. Collector rate is fixed to prevent stamp duty evasion and it is not the market price of the land. 9. If the NHAI have paid 5 times than Collector rate in all cases of Kapurthala Distt. and many times (ranging from Rs. 62,500/ - to Rs. 2.5 lac per marla) in 629 cases of Dasuya Sub Division then why not in this case. 10. The enhancement is made in spirit of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case mentioned above : 2010(3) Civil Court Cases 673 (S.C.) Special Land Acquisition Officers Vs. Karigowda and ors. 11. 35 adjournments were given to NHAI to file reply over a period of more than 3 1/2 years. No objection was raised by NHA -1. No documents were asked to cross check. No objection were ever raised by the both Ld. Counsel for procedure adopted by the arbitrator. Enough opportunities were provided to both the parties to lead evidence, submit affidavit, or counter affidavit etc." The Objecting Court found that award was contrary to the law as similar award passed regarding adjoining chunk of land in the adjoining District, much less, the sale deeds of irrelevant period and sizes of acquired pieces of land had been taken into consideration. It has been further found that unique procedure had been adopted.;