Summary
The Union challenged decisions applying Land Acquisition Act precedent to compensation proceedings under the National Highways Act. The Court held that the statutory schemes differed: under Section 3G(5), either dissatisfied party could seek determination by the appointed arbitrator. The contrary judgments were set aside and the appeals remitted to the High Court for determination under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Issues
- Whether the restriction derived from the Land Acquisition Act scheme applied to proceedings under the National Highways Act.
- Whether omission of the point from the review petition prevented consideration in the appeal.
Held
- The Land Acquisition Act award operates as the Government’s offer, whereas Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act permits either party dissatisfied with the competent authority’s amount to seek arbitral determination. The precedent based on the former scheme could not govern the latter in the manner adopted below. (¶¶ 2, 4)
- The limited grounds raised in review did not prevent consideration because the special leave challenge to the original judgment expressly raised the point and delay had been condoned. (¶¶ 3, 4)
Result
The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments set aside and the matters remitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court for decision in its Section 37 jurisdiction. The Chief Justice was requested to constitute an appropriate Bench to hear these and dependent matters at the earliest.