Union Of India And ANR v. Jagjit Singh And ORS



     
 

    

!"

#$%$!&'

()*)+




   


   



   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA   

     !""# $

%&'(    &  TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA




 

)"&"# "& !*&#+

& ), &&&"" ""(*&#%

&

%& &-.

-/ 0/-1%2 ),   ""*&("34 )" " &5(""

"(%-661% 7 %8 )" "(9:"&),  "" # "  )"

&%& &0;

/< 0/--%

)&"+"&     (

(&%")"% &+ *"#0 =  3+  )#"# & ---(+ ""#
 -->>1>- "* &""

# + *%  " 

=%""(*&  *  (?*"& *)"( * 2"&"# &* "#

&

@ 

=(" "  "# , -> ""( "*&(" :  "  "# ,(%-6;12  *)" & " * "   A&"

-6 /6 0//1 5 "++ "& 2

 "'"&'"&  *)"("( "# (+  "

, ) & '"&  &  & &  0;

/< 0/--%      &> &2  2 

"& (+  "  (?*"& & 2  *(*(   & (

#&),  &B)*  """&)!("

""*&("34 )" "(2 "( 2 &"+"&),  &&&"" ""(*&#%

&

%'"&"+ *#&!*&#+%& & -.

-/ 0/-1%),)'"# *& 14.

The next point agitated before this court challenging the award is that the arbitrator has ignored the provisions of section 143 of PUDA Act 1995 and Section 3 of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Un-regulated Development Act, 1963. The above acts regulate the constructions around the scheduled roads within the defined area and within the requisite parameters and the compensation ought to have been reduced keeping in view the scale/parameter provided in the said act. This court is unable to accede to this submission of petitioners as these provisions would not stand in a way of arbitrator in assessing the market value of the acquired land.

15.

One of the main point vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the enhancement of the compensation by learned Arbitrator is exorbitant, excessive and the award was passed without adopting any legal procedure, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 16.

It is now a settled law that the Arbitrator is the sole judge of quality and quantity of the evidence before him and decide on the basis of available evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that unless and until the award suffers from illegality or there is error apparent on the face of record or for want of reason as statutorily prescribed under section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the same

( cannot be interfered with. In the present case, a perusal of the record reveals that due notice was served to the petitioners/respondents, they appeared through their counsel Sh. Karan Seth, Advocate who filed reply. The Arbitrator for the purpose of determining of the amount of compensation also visited the spot. Thereafter, issues were framed and on each of the issue categoric finding has been given after considering the material/evidence on the record. The Arbitrator after giving reasons for enhancement of the compensation has passed the present award. Thus, the award under challenge was passed by the Arbitrator after giving full and adequate opportunities of hearing to the parties and parties led their respective evidence in detail before the Arbitrator.

Thereafter, the speaking order has been passed after following due procedure and no fault could be pointed out by the petitioners in the procedure adopted or the capacity of the Arbitrator. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order as the objections against the award were not falling within realm of section 34 of the Act.

'"2 =" "+ *#&!*&#+&*+

, 

)

&correct appreciation of facts and is well reasoned.

4.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

5.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.



TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA 3/ /4 0/0;