- (1.) Appellant, a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has laid this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') to assail the impugned order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur (for short 'the learned court below') as well as the award dated 02.01.2007 rendered by Arbitral Tribunal and the award dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Competent Authority (LA)-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa insofar as the same relate to compensation for acquisition of land in question. A further relief is sought for determining compensation for acquisition of land on the basis of prevailing market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (fort short 'the Act of 1956') with other consequential benefits.
(2.) Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the State Government acquired the factory land as per the prescribed procedure and the same was allotted to the appellant in the year 1981-82 by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (for short 'RIICO') on 99 years lease basis. Subsequently, a part of factory land measuring 12,300 sq.m. was acquired by the Central Government for National Highways Authority of India (fort short 'NHAI'). Pursuant to the acquisition, the Competent Authority (LA)-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Girwa vide its award dated 11.08.2006 partially allowed the claim of the appellant for compensation towards damages and costs of construction and then existing Effluent Treatment Plant ('ETP'). The compensation awarded by the Competent Authority was not determined commensurating with the market value of the land and that prompted the appellant to lay a claim petition before the Arbitral Tribunal and District Collector under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. The Arbitral Tribunal by its award dated 02.01.2007 modified the award of the Competent Authority by allowing compensation for establishing new ETP with some other damages and expenses. However, the Arbitral Tribunal affirmed the award of Competent Authority so far as it relates to compensation of land acquired. As the afflictions of the appellant were not properly appreciated and redressed by the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to compensation for the land acquired inasmuch as the Arbitral Tribunal has also not taken note of the market value of the land, the appellant pursued its cause by way of laying an application/objection under section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the learned court below. In its application/objection, the appellant ventilated its grievances against the award of the Competent Authority as well as Arbitral Tribunal for re-determining the compensation of the land acquired as per the market value of the land and sought enhancement of the amount of compensation. For substantiating its grievances, the appellant has urged many issues before the learned court below and made sincere endeavour to persuade it but in vain. Ultimately, the cause sought to be agitated by the appellant before the learned court below did not find favour of it and objections of the appellant were rejected.
(3.) It is also pertinent to note here that arbitral award is also questioned by the respondent-NHAI by way of laying a separate application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 but the said effort of the respondent-NHAI proved abortive as its application/ objection was time-barred. It is in that background, the appellant has invoked appellate jurisdiction of this Court.;