AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Raghunandan Rao, J
A part of the land of the petitioners situated in Sy.No.518/2A and 524/5B of Gangavaram Village was acquired, for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.4, under the Provisions of National Highways Act. The petitioners being dissatisfied, with the compensation fixed for them, have invoked arbitration. The petitioners being aggrieved, by the award of the Arbitrator, moved Arb.O.P.No.116 of 2020, for setting aside the Award, dated 17.01.2020, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Judge, Chittoor.
The petitioners have moved I.A.No.78 of 2023, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to measure the distance from the schedule property and a property which was the subject matter of a deed of sale, dated 22.08.2015, which was registered as Document No.3201 of 2015 and for measuring the distance from the scheduled land to Palamaner Municipality along the main road of the Bangalore-Chennai Highway. This application was rejected by the trial Court, by an order dated 06.11.2024. The trial Court took the view that the scope of review, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, would not extend to a reassessment of the material before the Arbitral Tribunal and the exercise of an Advocate Commissioner being appointed, for measuring the distances, would not aid the petitioners in any manner, in relation to challenging the award, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have moved the present Civil Revision Petition.
Sri K. Jitendra, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Arbitrator ought to have measured these distances and the lapse on the part of the Arbitrator to carry out such measurements would amount to violation of principles of natural justice apart from being an arbitrary action which can be challenged, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that permitting such measurement would meet the ends of justice as it would demonstrate that the contention of the petitioners that the Arbitrator should have taken into account the value of land fixed under the aforesaid deed of sale would also be applicable to the land of the petitioners due to their proximity.
It was always open to the petitioners to have requested for such measurements before the Arbitrator. The contention that the Arbitrator had a responsibility to carry out such measurements is misplaced. Consequently, the contention that there was a lapse on the part of the Arbitrator in taking such measurements cannot be accepted.
As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the scope of review, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, is limited to the grounds set out therein. A reappreciation of evidence or forming an opinion which can be at variance from the view of the Arbitrator would not be sufficient for setting aside the award passed by such an Arbitrator. In such circumstances there would be no purpose in taking such measurements.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.