- (1.) Applicant-appellant National Highways Authority of India has preferred this Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act of 1996') being aggrieved by the order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Tonk in Arbitration Application No.51/2013 whereby the objections filed by the applicant-appellant under Section 34 against the award dated 29.8.2013 passed by the Arbitrator (District Collector, Tonk) have been rejected.
(2.) Briefly, stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Government of India had issued a Notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act of 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956) for acquiring lands of various persons including respondent No. 1 and 2 comprising of Khasra No.3817/319 situated in revenue village Panwad, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk for widening of National Highway No.12 from Jaipur-Tonk-Deoli Section and inviting objections from the interested persons to be submitted within 21 days of the publication of the Notification. Objectors Rajendra Kumar and Smt. Maya Devi did not submit any objection against such acquisition of land within the prescribed period. After giving personal hearing under Section 3C(2) of the Act of 1956 to the persons who filed their objections and after receipt of report from the competent authority, a declaration under Section 30D of the Act of 1956 was made by the Central Government by issuing a Notification. Upon publication of the declaration of acquisition under Section 30 of the Act of 1956, as per the provisions of Section 3D(2) of the Act of 1956, the land vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Thereafter process under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 for determination of amount payable as compensation was started and a public notice was published by the competent authority inviting claims from all the persons having interest in the land but respondent No. 1 and 2 failed to submit any claim before the competent authority. The competent authority after deciding the claims determined the amount of compensation payable to the land holders including respondent No. 1 and 2. Then the Central Government issued Notification appointing the District Collector, Tonk as an Arbitrator to hear the claims under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 filed by the parties aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority. The competent authority passed an award in favour of respondent No. 1 and 2, which according to the appellant was made without referring to the provisions of law in this regard, as Notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the Act of 1956 were issued for Khasra No.3817/319 but the award was passed for Khasra No.3877/319 which is a different khasra than the one notified for acquisition. In this background, the appellant aggrieved of the award passed by the competent authority in favour of respondent No. 1 and 2, by filing objections challenged the same before the Arbitrator (District Collector, Tonk) on the grounds mentioned therein. The District Collector vide his judgment dated 29.8.2013 dismissed the objections/arbitration application filed by the appellant holding that the award dated 25.6.2010 was proper and calls for no interference. The appellant challenged the impugned order of the Arbitrator by filing objections under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996) before the learned District Judge, Tonk, who by his order dated 27.5.2014 rejected the objections filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant has filed the present Misc. Appeal.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.;