Smt Sarla Devi Agarwal Vs Executive Engineer

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:22304

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ARBA No. 45 of 2025

¶6

Ritesh Kumar Agarwal S/o S/o Shri Natwar Lal Agarwal Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Baradawar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present DistrictSakti (C.G.)

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Executive Engineer National Highway, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Additional Commissioner Cum Arbitrator Bilaspur, Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Cum Competent Authority Land Acquisition Champa District Janjgir Champa(C.G.)

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

ARBA No. 44 of 2025

¶14

Smt Sarla Devi Agarwal W/o Shri Natwar Lal Agarwal Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Saragaon, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶15

--- Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Executive Engineer National Highway, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Additional Commissioner Cum Arbitrator Bilaspur, Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶18

3 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Cum Competent Authority Land Acquisition Champa District Janjgir Champa(C.G.)

¶19

--- Respondents

¶20

{Cause title, as taken from CIS}

¶21

For Appellant : Mr. J.A. Lohani, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGA For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer.

¶22

2

¶23

{Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

12/05/2026

1. Heard.

2. Since the issue involved in both the arbitration appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, Act, 1996) is one and the same, therefore, both the appeals heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

¶28

3. Arbitration Appeal No. 45 of 2025 has been filed by appellant – Ritesh Kumar Agarwal challenging the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Third District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Misc. Civil Suit No. 26 /19, whereby learned District Judge has set aside the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Case No. 4 v- 82 /2017-18.

¶29

4. Whereas, Arbitration Appeal No. 44 of 2025 has been filed by appellant – Smt. Sarla Devi Agarwal challenging the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by Third District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Misc. Civil Suit No. 22 /19, whereby learned District Judge has set aside the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in Case No. 5 v -82 /2017-18.

¶30

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants would submit that vide impugned order, learned third District Judge, Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa has set aside the order passed by Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur solely on the ground that it has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 1 – Executive Engineer, National Highway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, as such, the order passed by the Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur is contrary to

¶31

3

¶32

the the public policy. He further submits that if the learned District Judge had indeed made the above observation, then it ought to have remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur to pass order afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 1, instead thereof, it only quashed / set aside the order of Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, therefore, the appellants have deprived from relief, which otherwise may have granted to them, if Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur would have modified and enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by Competent Authority/ Land Acquisition Officer, hence, he prays that this petition may be allowed setting aside impugned order passed by third District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa as well as the order passed by the Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur and the matter may be remitted back to the Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur to restore the Case Nos. 4 v-82 /2017-18 {Ritesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Executive Engineer, National Highway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur & others } and Case No. 5 v-82 /2017-18 {Smt. Sarla Devi Agarwal vs. Executive Engineer, National Highway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur & others}, respectively and pass order afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶33

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 /DSGI would submit that though respondent No. 1 was party before Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, but neither notice was served to it nor any opportunity of hearing was provided, rather order was passed by Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, solely on the basis of report submitted by respondent No. 3- Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer and Patwari report, thus, ‘Principle of Natural Justice” was not followed. Hence, on this premise, learned 3^rd District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir has set aside the order passed by

¶34

4

¶35

Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, which does not call for any interference. As such, he prays that both the appeals deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3 has extended his support to the contention made by counsel for respondent No. 1/DSGI.

¶37

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶38

9. Perusal of impugned order passed by learned third District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa as well as the order passed by Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur show that respondent No. 1 was party before Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, but it has been specifically observed by learned third District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in the impugned order (Annexure A-1) that neither notice was served to respondent No. 1 – Executive Engineer, National Highway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur nor opportunity of hearing was provided, therefore, learned District Judge held that order passed by the Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur is against the public policy. Of-

¶39

course, aforesaid observation made by learned 3^rd District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa is sustainable up to some extent, as Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur passed the said order without following ‘Principle of Natural Justice’ because no opportunity of hearing was provided to respondent No. 1, but only setting order passed by Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur by learned 3^rd District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa is not complete order, rather after setting aside the said order, it ought to have remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur with a direction to pass order afresh after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties, as in

¶40

5

¶41

absence thereof, the appellants, who were applicant before the Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, have deprived from relief, to which they initiated proceedings before Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur.

¶42

10. In view of the foregoing discussion and further considering the contention putforth by counsel for the appellants, without entering into the merits of the case, both the arbitration appeals are allowed and the order dated 06.02.2025 & 30.09.2024 passed by Third District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Misc. Civil Suit No. 26/19 & 22/2019, respectively as well as the order dated 15.11.2017 passed by Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur passed in Case Nos. 4 v-82 /2017-18 {Ritesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Executive Engineer, National Highway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur & others } and Case No. 5 v-82 /2017-18 {Smt. Sarla Devi Agarwal vs. Executive Engineer, National Highway, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur & others}, respectively, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Arbitrator / Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur to restore aforesaid two cases in its original number for hearing and disposal afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶43

11. Let this exercise be done within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt / submission of copy of this order.

¶44

12. Let copy of this order be sent to the Third District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa to do the needful, if any.

¶45

13. Both the arbitration appeals are allowed to the extent sketched hereinabove.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶48

AMITKUMARDUBEY Digitally signedby AMITKUMAR DUBEYDate:2026.05.1913:37:20 +0530