16-year wait for fair land compensation violates Article 300A, Madras High Court says while dismissing NHAI appeals

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the dismissal of its Section 34 applications challenging arbitral awards concerning land acquisition compensation.

The awards were received at the NHAI office on 05.01.2019, and the Section 34 applications were filed on 05.04.2019.

The Principal District Judge held the applications to be one day late and also considered the challenges on their merits.

NHAI argued that the receipt date should be excluded when calculating limitation and that 05.01.2019 was a Saturday; the landowners disputed that the office was closed that day.

The land acquisition proceedings had originated in 2008, with notification under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in 2010.

Whether the Section 34 applications were filed within the limitation period under Section 34(3), given receipt of the awards on 05.01.2019 and filing on 05.04.2019.

Whether the appellate court should interfere with the arbitral awards in light of the District Judge’s findings on the merits of NHAI’s challenges.

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides a three-month period to apply for setting aside an arbitral award, calculated from receipt of the award; the Court treated the date of receipt as excluded when calculating that period.

Appeals from the order on a Section 34 application were brought under Section 37(1) and (2) of the Act.

The Court also observed that prolonged non-payment of fair compensation for acquired property implicates the constitutional protection under Article 300-A.

The Court found that the awards were received on 05.01.2019 and the applications were filed on 05.04.2019.

Because the date of receipt was not to be counted, the District Judge’s conclusion that the applications were one day late was erroneous.

The Court nevertheless declined to set aside the awards: it noted that the lower court had found sufficient notice of the arbitral proceedings and that NHAI had failed to appear before the Arbitrator; it also found no basis to disturb the findings against NHAI on its challenges to the evidence and its non-party contention.

All three appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.