The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by a landowner seeking parity in compensation with another landowner whose land was acquired for the same National Highway project, holding that a claim not pleaded before the arbitrator cannot be raised for the first time in proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The case arose from the acquisition of the appellant’s plot at Mouza Kapsi (Khurd), Nagpur, for a four-lane highway project undertaken by the National Highways Authority of India. An initial award dated December 29, 2014, fixed compensation at ₹5,23,720. Dissatisfied, the appellant invoked arbitration under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, seeking enhancement. The arbitrator partly allowed the claim and enhanced compensation from ₹2,700 per sq. meter to ₹3,900 per sq. meter by the award dated August 18, 2018. The appellant later sought parity with another landowner who had been awarded ₹9,900 per sq. meter for land acquired under the same project, contending that differential treatment was discriminatory and contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The District Court has rejected the application to set aside the arbitral award, prompting the appellant to appear before the High Court.
Rejecting the challenge, Justice Nivedita P. Mehta has held that the appellant had never pleaded a claim for compensation at ₹9,900 per sq. meter before the arbitrator, nor amended the statement of claim as required under Section 23 of the 1996 Act. The Court observed that mere reliance on another arbitral award through a pursis could not substitute pleadings or compel the arbitrator to grant relief beyond the scope of the claim. It further noted that the land of the comparator landowner was situated between two highways and carried a higher commercial value, a factor absent in the appellant’s case.
The Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 34 permit only limited judicial interference and do not allow re-appreciation of evidence or modification of an arbitral award, referring to Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1 and Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2025 INSC 605. Finding no patent illegality, perversity, or violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law, the Court upheld the arbitral award and the District Judge’s order dismissing the Section 34 application, and consequently dismissed the appeal.
Appperances
Appellant- Shri S.S. Sitani for the appellant
Respondents- Shri S.S.Hulke, AGP and Shri A.A. Kathane
