Vinod Kumar v. Union Of India And ANR

  
     





 





 ! "!#$%$&'
 ()*#(+




   !

"

#









$

  )' ,-)./. %

& 
'

(##)*
+, 
#


 

--. *
'


%

(


!"
//// /.+0*12'

 0#


 
'

,


#
1
 (, 
,*
223
 
#*
4#
,4




-- + 

  

15 ,
 
'

,
6

#
,


1

,

#
#

 
.




 


)

# +)
+ #,


# ) 
.

1


7 

1  
0#
.


.#
 -

#
, , 

#

 





2

# 

,

#
,,
0 ,
#
 *


1
.


 

# ,

- ,  

.
 
 


.# 1)
#
, 

#


 .
 , 
0#
15 ,



1)
#



.

  
   

 *
# ,
#






  
,


#



1
#


#
+ #,

# 

 
 ) 
.

1
 

9
7 

 :

-# #


7 


1 )
9
7 


.


1 
;
<

 

# 
1
#
#

.



, ,
.#


2
# 

, 
0#
, 

#
#
1
.

=

7- 6  
,


#


 



#
 -  

#
. 


>


#   
#


#
-




,
 
'

,
6



#
,




- )
0#

,+ 


1 + .
, -
# + 

#
, 1-
#
,
.#
#
1
 


- )
3 "
. 
1
-

,

.-
 ,   3 "



     
  

 

  !*
#
'
(
1 + "The Parliament has expressed the legislative judgement that the award shall state reasons upon which it is based unless parties have agreed otherwise or the award is covered on agreed terms under Section 30 of the new Act.

Thus, the law on the award, as governed by the new Act, is other way about of the pre-existing law; it mandates that the award should state the reasons upon which it is based. In other words, unless (a) the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given or (b) the award is an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30 of the new Act, the award should state the reasons in support of determination of the liability/non-liability. Thereby, legislature has not accepted the ratio of the Constitution Bench in the Chokhamal Contractor's case that the award, being in the private law field, need not be a speaking award even where the award relates to the contact of private parties or between person and the Government or public sector undertakings. The principle is the same, namely the award is governed by Section 31(3)." 3 
'
(

" # $  % &  '

 

  () *&  '

 !++, -  +-
 








  



    

 



 






 !
"


 
 
 
#
$ 
 

   
 
%




 

   




 








 


   


%  
 





 


 &
"


  







  






 


$ &
"



 
 
 


 

  
  


%
 

 

 

 

$   
 






 
 
 




 

 
#&'

(& "
  .

  '

  

/ 0  !++ +  !- #
'
(
#

25. The requirement of reasons in support of the award under Section 31(3)
is not an empty formality. It guarantees fair and legitimate consideration of the controversy by the arbitral tribunal. It is true that arbitral tribunal is not expected to write judgment like a court nor it is expected to give elaborate and detailed reasons in support of its finding/s but mere noticing the submissions of the parties or reference to documents is no substitute for reasons which the arbitral tribunal is obliged to give. Howsoever brief these may be, reasons must be indicated in the award as that would reflect thought process leading to a particular conclusion. To satisfy the requirement of Section 31(3) , the reasons must be stated by the arbitral tribunal upon which the award is based; want of reasons would make such award legally flawed. In what we have discussed above, it cannot be said that High Court was wrong in observing that no reasons have been assigned by the arbitral tribunal as to whether the period of completion extended by the employer for 18 months was due to reasons

 3 not attributable to the claimant. However, in our view, the High Court ought to have given the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to give reasons."

36

'
(



/ 11

1   2 *

'

 !+!! !  !

-
#

?6
0# .



,

 

.
 
#

223
,
#
1


,, ,1 
.#
#
15 ,

 - 

,
1)
,

1
  


#

-

.#,#

.
)
1 
 

?

 

- )@
A#
. 
, 
?




- )@
#
1



1 

 ,
B 
+
C

#
C +

 #)*
.#
?




- )@
#
1 )

 
#

# 

?%1 ,
% ,)@*
#
1


+ 

#

1=#  
#

.-
. &= &&&#)&
"

**(
%
 
  

  

  
   '
  
 

 
 
     #)& &

%


 


   
 

"





 



%


%

&
+ 



 



 

   
 





 
 



 
 & + 





 

 
),

 
%
 


 ),&
-
  

  

 &
.

/ 
 


 

  

" 

"


 

 

   


 

%


+ 
 
 

   


 

 
 

    


 
 

 

" 0'
#)&)&

%


 



%

 
%


 





 
  
.

1





 


 






 

   


 




%




 

 

 
 & #)&&

23  

 
  

 
  





 

 
),


%

  %
 


 ),&
-
  

  

 &
.

.
)

444

"

 

%


+ 
 
 


 
 










 
 




 





  



  &'
5)6 78

99
#*
+ 
 


 


 
 

  &
% %


+ 

 

 
 





 







 










 

 

 


 




 



 

 
 &
9  












 



 





 









 



 

   
 



 
  
 

&'
3
'
(

$  314 ( 1  / 5   * $6 7 1 1    !+!!

, 88  9+  #

24. Leaving aside the facts in the instant case for a while, if in a matter as against the determination of the market value by the SLAO, the land loser had referred to the exemplar sale deeds and seeks higher compensation than prescribed in the guidance value, and in that circumstance, if no reasons are assigned by the learned Arbitrator for such determination and either approves the SLAO award or awards a lesser amount than the actual entitlement, in such circumstance the arbitration process which is thrust on the land loser should

 4 not be an impediment and limited interference should not be a reason to deny the just and fair compensation. In such cases while examining the award in the limited scope under Section
of Act, 1996, the Court is required to take note as to whether the evidence available on record has been adverted to and has been taken note by the Arbitrator in determining the just compensation failing which it will fall foul of Section 31(3)
and amount to patent illegality .

Therefore, while examining the award within the parameters permissible under Section 34
of Act, 1996 and while examining the determination of compensation as provided under Sections 26 and 28 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the concept of just compensation for the acquired land should be kept in view while taking note of the award considering the sufficiency of the reasons given in the award for the ultimate conclusion.

In such event an error if found, though it would not be possible for the Court entertaining the petition under Section 34
or for the appellate court under Section 37
of Act 1996 to modify the award and alter the compensation as it was open to the court in the reference proceedings under Section 18
of the old Land Acquisition Act
or an appeal under Section 54
of that act, it should certainly be open to the court exercising power under Section 34
of Act, 1996 to set aside the award by indicating reasons and remitting the matter to the Arbitrator to reconsider the same in accordance with law.

The said exercise can be undertaken to the limited extent without entering into merits where it is seen that the Arbitrator has on the face of the award not appropriately considered the material on record or has not recorded reasons for placing reliance on materials available on record in the background of requirement under RFCTLARR Act, 2013."

[Emphasis supplied]

  
.

 

'

,
 

#
,

# ,
  




#
,,  
+ 
*


# .

-


1 .


#  
0#

#-

 ,

#.
#


-


#

  


1
-+ 

.
9 
#

 

#
.*


+ 
#



-



2

#
,,*
#
1


)
,,  
#
#

, , 

1)
#


 
.

, ,

  
.

 , 



#
,,  
+ 
 2





.




#
 - 
 

#
.  
  
 


)
#
# 
. 
1

1 )

+


, -

 #
1
/.    ()*#(+

7 
A# # 

7-:
   &
:



A# # 


1

&
: