Beneficial 2013 land acquisition compensation regime applies to pending highway acquisitions, and reasoned arbitral awards are mandatory.

Acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 may attract the beneficial compensation regime of the 2013 land acquisition law unless the award, deposit and payment to the majority of land holdings were all completed before 31.12.2014. Where compensation had not been paid to the majority, Sections 26 and 28 and the First Schedule of the 2013 Act govern valuation alongside Section 3-G(7) of the National Highways Act, which is not an exclusive code. A non-speaking arbitral award that gives no reasons, no statutory basis and no rational basis for comparison is vulnerable as patently illegal and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apply to acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 where the award had been announced and the amount deposited with the competent authority before 31.12.2014, but compensation had not been paid to the majority of the land holdings; (ii) whether compensation in such acquisition is to be determined only under Section 3-G(7) of the National Highways Act, 1956 or also with reference to Sections 26 and 28 and the First Schedule of the 2013 Act; (iii) whether the arbitral award could be sustained despite absence of reasons.

Issue (i): Whether the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 apply to acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 where the award had been announced and the amount deposited with the competent authority before 31.12.2014, but compensation had not been paid to the majority of the land holdings.

Analysis: The statutory scheme and the 2015 Order and guidelines were read as extending the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 except where the acquisition had already been fully concluded and settled. The distinction drawn in the guidelines between "paid" and "deposited" was held to be deliberate. A case would remain outside reopening only where award, deposit, and payment to the majority of land holdings had all occurred before 31.12.2014. Since compensation had not been paid to the majority of land holdings, the case fell within the category where the 2013 Act would apply.

Conclusion: The 2013 Act applies to the acquisition in question, in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation in such acquisition is to be determined only under Section 3-G(7) of the National Highways Act, 1956 or also with reference to Sections 26 and 28 and the First Schedule of the 2013 Act.

Analysis: Section 3-G(7) was treated as laying down only the basic parameters for compensation, not as excluding the later beneficial regime. Once the 2013 Act was made applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956, the factors under Sections 26 and 28 and the First Schedule also governed determination of compensation. The method of valuation had to conform to the broader statutory mandate of fair compensation and could not be confined to the older provision alone.

Conclusion: Compensation is to be determined by applying Sections 26 and 28 and the First Schedule of the 2013 Act as well, in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the arbitral award could be sustained despite absence of reasons.

Analysis: The award was found to be non-speaking. It did not disclose the statutory basis for valuation, did not show consideration of the relevant factors, and merely enhanced compensation by reference to another village without articulating why that comparison was appropriate. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, reasons are mandatory unless dispensed with by agreement or an agreed terms award. Failure to give reasons was treated as violation of the substantive law and patent illegality, rendering the award vulnerable in proceedings under Sections 34 and 37.

Conclusion: The non-speaking arbitral award cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside, in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The compensation dispute had to be examined under the beneficial regime of the 2013 land acquisition law, and the unexplained arbitral determination was legally unsustainable; the impugned orders and award were set aside with liberty to pursue fresh arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 is not a completed and settled case before 31.12.2014, the beneficial compensation provisions of the 2013 Act apply, and an arbitral award determining compensation must contain reasons showing application of the relevant statutory factors, failing which it is patently illegal.

---