B K Shivakumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(C) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2024 PASSED IN A.P.NO.03/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996.

¶28

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB MFA No. 1791 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶34

The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 37(1) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereafter A&C Act ] impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere [Commercial Court] in A.P. No.3/2024. The appellants had filed the said petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, impugning an arbitral award dated 04.01.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner [respondent No.1], Chithathurga, Haveri Division (NH-48), Davanagere District, Davanagere [Annexure-B].

¶35

The disputes essentially relate to the compensation determined by respondent No.3 - Special Land Acquisition Officer [hereafter ' SLAO '] in respect of land measuring 1010 square meters located in Halebathi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Davanagere Taluk ['subject land'] which was acquired pursuant to the notifications dated 29.01.2016 under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 [' Act, 1956 '] and 27.01.2017 issued under Section 3D(1) of the Act, 1956. The SLAO has determined the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB MFA No. 1791 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

compensation payable for the subject land at Rs.3,59,388/-. Additionally, the compensation for the loss of trees and plant was determined at Rs.22,508/- and construction raised thereon at Rs.42,13,242/-, the SLAO also determined the solatium at 100% of the amount at Rs.45,95,138/- and further 12% interest. The total compensation is determined at Rs.92,59,279/-.

¶39

Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred an application under Section 3G (5) of the Act,1956. It is the appellants' case that the compensation determined was below the market value. In particular, the appellants claimed that the subject land was converted for non-agricultural purposes and therefore, the compensation is required to be determined on the basis of rates of converted for non-agricultural purposes. However, the SLAO has determined the compensation of subject land based on the premise that it is an agricultural land. The appellants also sought additional compensation for the building and construction raised on the subject land.

¶40

The arbitral Tribunal rejected the said claims in terms of the impugned order, principally on the ground that the appellants had

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB MFA No. 1791 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

failed to produce any evidence to establish that the value of the subject land was significantly higher than that determined by the SLAO. The appellants had also failed to produce any order converting the agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The arbitral Tribunal also observed that it had no jurisdiction to enhance the compensation with regard to respective buildings.

¶44

The appellants filed a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act to set aside the award. However, the same was dismissed by the impugned order.

¶45

The principal question that falls for consideration is 'whether the impugned award is liable to be set aside on the ground that it is vitiated by patent illegality or is otherwise opposed to the public policy of India?'

¶46

In our view, none of the aforesaid grounds — as are specified in Section 34 of the A&C Act — are established. As noticed above, the impugned award is premised on the basis that the appellants have failed to produce any documentary or other evidence to establish that the value of the subject land is significantly higher than as determined by the SLAO. Since the

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:47256-DB MFA No. 1791 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

appellants' claim was not supported by any evidence or material evidence, the arbitral Tribunal rejected the same.

¶51

In our view, the decision does not suffer from any perversity or non application of mind as concededly there are no documents or material on record to establish that the value of the subject land was higher than as determined by the SLAO. The appellants claim that the value of the land was required to be determined on the basis of rates for commercial land, was also rejected as the appellants had not produced any material to show that the subject land was legally converted. In view of the above, we find no merit in the present appeal.

¶52

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶54

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶55

BS

¶56

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

B K Shivakumar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B K Shivakumar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramaiah Vs the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Sri.a.v.Ananda Ram Vs Sri.Rakshith K.R.

M/S Control Engineers Vs Mallikarjuna M

Mr. Doddaputtaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Luman Industries Limited

Sri Gopala Krishna B Vs Sri Rajesh Kohli