Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India vs Damodhar Ashruba Sapkal And Anr.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:19369

¶2

IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

908 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2025

¶4

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director VERSUS

¶5

Sudam Madhavrao Bobade And Another

¶6

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. R. S. Sarvadnya Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Tushar Shinde h/f Mr. Shinde

¶7

Chandrakant K.

¶8

... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12380 OF 2025 IN ARBA/72/2025

¶9

… AND 909 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2025

¶10

Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

Damodhar Ashruba Sapkal And Anr.

¶13

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. R.B. Bagul Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sarvadnya Rohit s.

¶14

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12382 OF 2025

¶15

953 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2025

¶16

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

Raosaheb Madhavrao Bobade Died Through Lrs Bhausaheb Raosaheb Bobade And Others

¶19

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Ms. Mayuri G. Kasturkar

¶20

WITH

¶21

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12410 OF 2025

¶22

IN ARBA/82/2025

¶23

... AND 954 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2025

¶24

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

Kachrulaji Bastimal Jain And Others

¶27

Page 1 of 5

¶28

908 Arb Appeal 72-2025 + 6

¶29

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Rajesh H. Mewara Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3: Mr. Kunal Kale

¶30

WITH

¶31

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12412 OF 2025 IN ARBA/83/2025

¶32

… AND

¶33

955 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2025

¶34

The Project Director The National Highways Authority Of India

¶35

VERSUS

¶36

Jyoti Dilichend Lodha And Others

¶37

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. N. T. Bhagat Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Ms. Jyoti D. Lodha

¶38

WITH

¶39

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12415 OF 2025 IN ARBA/84/2025

¶40

… AND ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2025

¶41

The National Highways Authority Of India Through its Project Director

¶42

VERSUS

¶43

Dilip Madhavrao Bobade and Another

¶44

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. U. B. Bondar Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. A.B. Hawale

¶45

WITH

¶46

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12386 OF 2025 IN ARBA/74/2025

¶47

… AND ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2025

¶48

The National Highways Authority Of India Through its Project Director

¶49

VERSUS

¶50

Abhimanyu Ashruba Magar Died Through His Lrs. Tarabai Abhimanyu Magar

¶51

Page 2 of 5

¶52

908 Arb Appeal 72-2025 + 6

¶53

and Another

¶54

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Narwadkar Mrigesh Dinkarrao Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Nitin Salunke Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Y. K. Bobade

¶55

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. Dated : April 29, 2026

¶56

PER COURT :

¶57

Heard.

¶58

By the present Arbitration Appeals, the appellants challenge the order passed by the District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereby the arbitral awards were set aside and the matters were remitted to the arbitrator.

¶59

The facts, in brief, are that the lands in question were acquired for the widening of National Highway No. 211, situated within Taluka and District Beed. A notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 was issued on 20/06/2014. Compensation was initially determined under Section 3G(1), and thereafter applications were filed under Section 3G(5). The arbitrator enhanced the compensation; however, different amounts were awarded for different lands. The said awards were challenged by the claimants before the District Court. By a common order,

¶60

Page 3 of 5

¶61

908 Arb Appeal 72-2025 + 6

¶62

the District Court set aside all the arbitral awards and remitted the matters to the arbitrator for fresh determination.

¶63

Challenging the said order, the learned Counsel for the National Highway Authority submits that the observations made by the District Court in paragraphs 26 and 27 may affect the final outcome of the arbitral proceedings. It is contended that the said observations suggest that the arbitrator is required to award uniform compensation to all the appellants.

¶64

Upon perusal of the impugned order, the observations made by the District Court do not appear to be erroneous. However, since the acquisition pertains to lands from different villages, some variation in compensation is possible depending upon the sale instances relied upon by the arbitrator, including the location and distance of such lands. Such variation, however, may only be marginal. The observation of the District Court that similarly situated lands should be granted the same compensation appears, prima facie , to be correct. Nevertheless, the ultimate discretion must remain with the arbitrator, who shall determine the compensation on the basis of relevant sale deeds and attendant circumstances.

¶65

The learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that, while remitting the matters, the District Court ought not to have re-examined the

¶66

Page 4 of 5

¶67

908 Arb Appeal 72-2025 + 6

¶68

evidence. However, the District Court has observed that similarly situated lands should be awarded similar compensation. It has also taken into consideration that the principles of determination of price for lands acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, in view of the notification issued under Section 105 of the 2013 Act, making Sections 26 to 30 applicable.

¶69

In view of the above, the observations of the District Court are appropriate, and no error is found in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Arbitration Appeals stand disposed with above observations.

¶70

The National Highway Authority shall pay the requisite court fees within a period of six weeks from today. All pending Civil Applications stand disposed of.

¶71

( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )

¶72

vj gawade/-.

¶73

Page 5 of 5

Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India v. Damodhar Ashruba Sapkal And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India v. Damodhar Ashruba Sapkal And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Scil Capital India Private Limited vs Farmer Four LLP

Kotak Mahindra Bank through Deputy Manager Poonam Pawar vs Alpesh Shah

National Highway Authority of India Thru. Its Project Director Shree Swapnil Kasar vs the Competent Authority, Dy,Collector and Anr.

Kalyan Ashruba Naikwade and Others vs Project Director National Highway Authority Of India and Another

Executive Ship Management Pvt. Ltd. vs Saloni Kumari

National Highways Authority Of India Through Its Project Director vs Sudam Madhavrao Bobade and Another