Dismissed

M Ratna Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024WP/8210/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The Court held that a reappreciation of evidence or measuring land distances post-award falls outside the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

M Ratna Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO^^^HO?^

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3190 OF 2024

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders passed in lA.No.78/2023, in Arb.O.P.No.116 of 2020, Dt.06.11.2024 on the file of Ld. Trial Court / VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

¶9

Between;

¶10

Inti Manohar Naidu, aged 61 years, S/o Late Srihari Naidu, residing at D.No.6-1, Sai Nagar, Madanapalle road, Palamaner, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶11

M.Mohan Kumar, aged 54 years, S/o K.Muniraju residing at near Ramarao Upper Primary High School, Prakasham street, Kothapeta Madanapalle, Annamayya District.

¶12

...Petitioners/Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

The District Collector Cum Arbitrator for NH Cases, New Collectorate Premises, Vellore Road, Gangasagaram, Chittoor.

¶15

The Joint Collector cum Competent Authority, Chittoor Collectorate Premises, Vellore road, Gangasagaram, Chittoor

¶16

The Tahsildar, Gangavaram Mandal, Back side of Gangavaram Police station, Gangavaram, Chittoor District.

¶17

The Project Director, NH Authority Act., D.No.23-3-39-501, 5th Floor, Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Vykuntapuram Road, M.R.Palli, Tirupathi.

¶18

...Respondents/Respondents

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Arb.OP.No.116 of 2020 pending on the file of Ld. VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor pending disposal of the present CRP.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI JITENDRA KANYALUR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

APHC010578742024

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

[3488]

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

,THE__aT?^L_ day of FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶33

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3190/2024

¶34

Between:

¶35

Inti Manohar Naidu and Others

¶36

...PETITIONER(S)

¶37

AND

¶38

The District Collector Cum Arbitrator For Nh Cases and Others

¶39

...RESPONDENT{S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petitloner(S):

¶41

1.JITENDRA KANYALUR

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

¶44

The Court made the following order; (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶45

A part of the land of the petitioners situated in Sy.No.518/2A^and 524/5B of Gangavaram Village was acquired, for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.4, under the Provisions of National Highways Act. The petitioners being dissatisfied, with the compensation fixed for them, have invoked arbitration. The petitioners being aggrieved, by the award of the Arbitrator, moved Arb.O.P.No.116 of 2020, for setting^{asidetheAward,dated}

¶46

17.01.2020, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and^{ConciliationAct,1996} before the District Judge, Chittoor.

¶47

The petitioners have moved I.A.No.78 of 2023, for^{appointmentof} an Advocate Commissioner, to measure the distance from the schedule property and a property which was the subject matter^{ofadeedofsale,dated} 22.08.2015, which was registered as Document No.3201 of 2015 and for measuring the distance from the scheduled land to Palamaner^Municipality along the main road of the Bangalore-Chennai Highway.^{Thisapplicationwas} rejected by the trial Court, by an order dated 06.11.2024.^{ThetrialCourttook} the view that the scope of review, under Section 34^{oftheArbitrationand} Conciliation Act, would not extend to a reassessment^{ofthematerialbefore} the Arbitral Tribunal and the exercise of an Advocate^{Commissionerbeing} appointed, for measuring the distances, would not aid^{thepetitionersinany} manner, in relation to challenging the award, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have^moved the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Sri K. Jitendra, learned counsel for the petitioners^wouldsubmit that the Arbitrator ought to have measured these distances^{andthelapseon} the part of the Arbitrator to carry out such measurements^{wouldamountto} violation of principles of natural justice apart from^{beinganarbitraryaction} which can be challenged, under Section 34 of the Arbitration^{andConciliation} Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also^{submitthatpermittingsuch}

¶48

¶49

measurement would meet the ends of justice as it would^{demonstratethatthe} contention of the petitioners that the Arbitrator should^{havetakenintoaccount} the value of land fixed under the aforesaid deed of sale would also be applicable to the land of the petitioners due to their proximity.

¶50

It was always open to the petitioners to have requested^forsuch measurements before the Arbitrator. The contention that the Arbitrator had a responsibility to carry out such measurements is misplaced. Consequently, the contention that there was a lapse on the part of the Arbitrator in taking such measurements cannot be accepted.

¶51

As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the scope^ofreview. under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, is limited to the grounds set out therein. A reappreciation of evidence or forming an opinion which can be at variance from the view of the Arbitrator would not be sufficient for setting aside the award passed by such an Arbitrator. In such circumstances^therewouldbe no purpose in taking such measurements.

¶52

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.^Thereshall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^{shallstandclosed.}

¶54

Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRY

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶59

One CC to

¶60

Sri Jitendra Kanyalur Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.}

¶62

Three CD Copies

Q AX/V

S ■

HIGH COURT

DATED;21/02/2025

ORDER

CRP.No.3190 of 2024

AND/y/g^,
X 0 5 MAR 2n?5
c».
^ . Curreni oecuun

¶70

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

M Ratna Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ratna Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirumala Naga Venkata Satyanarayana Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

J Lakshmanna Vs the State of Ap

Neerugattu NageswaraATNagesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pasupuleti Pavan Kumar Vs the State

Kappareddy Praveen kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

T.Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh