Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaushalya Bai vs Central Government National Highways … on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11928
1 AA-164-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2026
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 164 of 2025
SADANLAL
Versus
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA THROUGH ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sidharth Chhajed - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rohit Verma on behalf of Shri Arpit Guru - Advocate for respondent
No.1.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
WITH
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 165 of 2025
HARSHVARDHAN
Versus
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
INDIA THROUGH ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sidharth Chhajed - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Jayant Upadhyay (through VC) and Shri Manish Ahuja - Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 166 of 2025
HARSHWARDHAN
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11928
2 AA-164-2025
Versus
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA THROUGH ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sidharth Chhajed - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mitesh Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 167 of 2025
KAUSHALYA BAI
Versus
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA THROUGH ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sidharth Chhajed - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mitesh Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 168 of 2025
KAUSHALYA BAI
Versus
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA THROUGH ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sidharth Chhajed - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Mitesh Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 169 of 2025
RAMA ALIAS RAMLAL AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11928
3 AA-164-2025
Versus
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA THROUGH ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sidharth Chhajed - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Harshita Pandit - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Heard on : 26.02.2026
Pronounced on : 28.04.2026
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’) being
aggrieved by the award passed under Section 34 proceedings by the District
Judge, Dewas, District Dewas (MP) in Case No. MJC(AV) No. 160/2024
and other connected cases.
For the sake of convenience, the facts of Arbitration Appeal No.
164/2025 are being referred to :
2. The Central Government National Highway Authority of India /
respondent for the purpose of four-laning / widening / up-gradation of
National Highway Connectivity Indore to Harda Section under taken
exercise of acquisition of land in respect of six villages namely Akhepur,
Baray, Gajnodkheda, Choubapiplya, Akbarpur and Raghogarh in District
Dewas. As such, proceedings in terms of provisions of National Highway
Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1956’) were undertaken andin terms of Section 3(A) of the Act of 1956 notification was issued whereby
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:119284 AA-164-2025
the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dewas was designated as the
competent authority for the purpose of acquisition of land. In terms of
Section 3A of the Act of 1956 notification dated 04.08.2020 was issued,
thereafter, notification dated 17.06.2021 was issued in terms of Section 3D
of the Act of 1956 for acquiring land of appellants in the instant as well as
connected appeals. The competent authority have passed the award dated
31.01.2022 thereby determining compensation. The appellants in these
appeals being dissatisfied with the award submitted their separate
applications in terms of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 before the Collector,
District Dewas / Arbitrator who decided those applications vide order
27.09.2024 thereby declining any relief.
3. Being aggrieved, separate applications under Section 34 of the Act
of 1996 were filed before the District Judge, Dewas who passed the order
dated 30.06.2025 against which this instant appeal has been filed. (Identical
is the situation in other connected appeals). The District Judge while
deciding the applications under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 considered
only two aspects. First, whether the market value of the land as assessed was
appropriate or not; secondly, which factor will apply, i.e. whether it should
be one or two.
4. Both the issues (regarding market value of land as well as factor)
are decided against the appellant and in favour of respondent No.1. The
District Judge held that in view of the interim order passed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of SLP (C) No. 4081-4082/2023 no direction for
application of factor two can be given.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11928
5 AA-164-2025
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant though submits that the issue
involved in the present bunch of appeals is covered with ratio as laid down
in the case of Arbitration Appeal no. 8 of 2025 as far as the question of
application of factor is concerned, however, he submits that he would like to
argue on the issue of market value of the land acquired.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand at the outset
submitted that both these issues have already been decided by this Court vide
order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Arbitration Appeal No. 8 of 2025 (Gani vs.
Collector & Others) and connected appeals.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that sale deeds which
were placed on record have not been considered by the District Judge. He
submits that the law has now been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Vs. Vincent Daniel
& Ors. (2025) 7 SCC 798, the District Court should have considered the ratio
of that case and should have enhanced the market value of the land in
question accordingly.
8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
9. The District Judge has considered the issue of market value of the
land in question and considered the sale deeds placed on record by the
appellant in paragraph 18 of the impugned order. The court found that the
sale deeds which are being relied are for very small pieces of land and are
also not situated near the land of the appellant. The Court found that the
nature of the land is also not similar. This court does not find any perversity
in the findings recorded by the District Court. The law as laid down by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11928
6 AA-164-2025
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vincent Daniel (supra) has to be applied
on considering the factual aspects of the matter. This court does not find any
perversity in the findings recorded by the District Judge from para 18 to 27
of the impugned order.
10. This Court while considering identical facts in the case of Gani
(supra) considered this aspect in para 10 as under:
“10. As regards the valuation of the property, the contention of the learned
counsel that the sale deed was not considered is without merit. It is seen from
the findings recorded by the learned District Judge in para 21 that the
reasoning is well founded. This Court is also of the opinion that a singular sale
deed pertaining to a small area of 200 sq. meters cannot be made the basis for
challenging the market value. The Division Bench of this Court while
considering this aspect in the case of M.P. Road Development Corporation vs.
Mohd. Shahbuddin and Ors, (2022) 3 MPLJ 674 has held in paras 27 and 33 as
under :
27. In view of the aforesaid principles, in our view, the new
expression employed in section 26(1) (a) of Act, 2013 must be
given full meaning and effect. We are unable to hold that the
expression, the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp
Act is such a dull and lifeless expression which can be ignored.
Apart from this, clause (a) aforesaid talks absolutely the area
where land is situated. These factors are of utmost importance for
determination of market value of land by Collector.
33. The Collector guidelines dated 3.3.2014 shows that the same
are issued under section 47-A read with section 75 of Stamp Act
and as per the Guidelines Rules aforesaid. Thus, Collector
guidelines, in our view, provides determining factors for
calculation of market value of land and compensation as per
section 26 (1)(a) of the Act.”
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of
India, (2009) 15 SCC 769 has held as under :
41. It should however be noted that as contrasted from the assessment of
market value contained in non-statutory basic valuation registers, the position
may be different, where the guideline market values are determined by Expert
Committees constituted under the State stamp law, by following the detailed
procedure laid down under the relevant Rules, and are published in the State
Gazette. Such State Stamp Acts and the Rules thereunder, provide for scientific
and methodical assessment of market value in different areas by Expert
Committees.
42. These statutes provide that such Expert Committees will be constituted
with officers from the Department of Revenue, Public Works, Survey &Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:119287 AA-164-2025
Settlement, Local Authority and an expert in the field of valuation of
properties, with the Sub-Registrar of the sub-registration district as the
Member-Secretary. They also provide for different methods of valuation for
lands, plots, houses and other buildings. They require determination of the
market value of agricultural lands by classifying them with reference to soil,
rate of revenue assessment, value of lands in the vicinity and locality, nature of
crop yield for a specified number of years, and situation (with reference to
roads, markets, etc.).
43. The rates assessed by the Committee are required to be published inviting
objections/suggestions from the members of the public. After considering such
objections/suggestions, the final rates are published in the gazette. Such
published rates are revised and updated periodically. When the guideline
market values, that is, minimum rates for registration of properties, are so
evaluated and determined by the Expert Committees as per statutory procedure,
there is no reason why such rates should not be a relevant piece of evidence for
determination of market value.
44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with
reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such
statutorily constituted Expert Committees, as expert evidence can therefore
form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a
relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place
evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline
market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can
be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily
appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment
procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and
finalised after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it
may.
12. In view of the law as laid down by the Division Bench quoted in
paragraphs 10 above and the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph
11 above, considering that in the present case the guidelines as relied by the
Arbitrator were issued by the competent authority after complying with the
provisions of the Stamp Act and the rules made thereunder coupled with the
fact that the sale deeds as relied on by the appellant are not of similar land
and also not of same area. As such on this count no interference is required
in the impugned order.
13. As regards the issue of application of factor, this Court while
considering the identical issue in case of Gani (supra) has observed in para
12 to 16 as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11928
8 AA-164-2025
”12. As regards the application of factor, whether the multiplying factor of 1 or
2 would apply, it has to be noted that the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Badrilal Dhakad and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. in W.P.
No.16808/2019 while deciding a bunch of petitions vide order dated
27.01.2022 has held in para 14 as under :
“14. As per the definition under section 2(b) of the Act of 2013 the
State Government would be the appropriate Government in
relation to the acquisition of land situated within the territory of
State. The Central Government would be the appropriate
government in relation of acquisition of land situated within Union
territory except for Pondichery and in relation to acquisition of
land for the public purpose in more than one State, the Central
Government shall consult with the concerned State Government or
the Union territory and under section 2(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 in
relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union, as
may be specified by notification, the appropriate Government
would be the Central Government. Since the land of the
petitioners is situated within the State Government, therefore, the
respondents are treating State Government as appropriate
Government and applying the notification dated 29.9.2014 under
section 26(2) of Act of 2013 which gave a cause of action to the
petitioners to challenge the validity of the said notification but if it
is held that in this acquisition the appropriate Government is the
Central Government then the notification issued by the Central
Government dated 9.2.2016 would apply in which the multiplier is
2.00(two) for the rural area. As per 1st Schedule, the following
components provided in the table shall constitute the minimum
compensation package to be given to the landowners whose land
is acquired. Serial no.2 is the factor by which the market value is
to be multiplied in the case of rural areas and for which the
appropriate government is required to notify the factor based on
the distance of the project from the urban area. The Central
Government has issued a notification prescribing the factor 2.00
(two) whereas State of M.P by way of impugned notification dated
29.9.2014 has fixed the multiplier 1.00(one) but the NHAI which
is the instrumentality of the Central Government, therefore, by
virtue of 2(e) (v) of Act of 2013 the Central Government shall be
the appropriate Government, hence the notification dated 9.2.2016
issued by the Central Government would apply. In such a
situation, the validity of the notification issued by the State
Government is not required to be examined or adjudicated because
the same is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. Since the
petitioners have already preferred appeals before the Arbitrator u/s
3G(5), therefore, it is for the Arbitrator to consider and decide the
multiplier in view of the findings given hereinabove instead of
setting aside the award and remanding the matter to the competent
authority.”
12.1 It is thus clear that the Division Bench considered that the acquisition of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11928
9 AA-164-2025
land by the NHAI was for the purposes of a national highway and that the
NHAI is an instrumentality of the Central Government. Accordingly, the
appropriate Government in the said case would be the Central Government by
virtue of the provisions of Section 3(e)(v).
13. In the present case also, it is undisputed that the land is being acquired by
the NHAI for the purpose of construction of a national highway. It is also not
under dispute that the area where the land is being acquired falls under the
category of rural area.
14. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madholal Meena and Ors. in
F.A.No.1400/2023 F.A.No.1400/2023, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court while
passing the order dated 05.02.2025 has also held that the of factor two would
be applicable where the Central Government is the appropriate Government, in
vies of the fact that the notification issued by the Central Government,
prescribes that for rural areas the factor of two would apply. In this view of the
matter, interference in the impugned order on this count is warranted.
However, it has also to be kept in mind that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Badrilal (supra) has passed interim order dated 13.03.2023 as under :
“We make it clear that the pendency of these special leave
petitions will not stand in the way of the petitioners dispensing
compensation computed on the basis of factor of one. This will be
subject to the final outcome of the cases.”
15. The learned District Judge in para 25 of the impugned order has observed
as under :
“25. It is suffice to state that the question of applicability of
multiplier one or two in respect of land situated at rural areas in
acquisition proceedings of Central Government is pending before
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
13.03.2023 (Supra) has directed to release compensation by using
multiplier-1. Therefore, the award of arbitrator cannot be disturbed
on this ground as if multiplier factor 2 is decided by Hon’ble
Supreme Court, applicant shall also be entitled to enhance
compensation in accordance with Section 73 of the RFCTLARR
Act.”
16. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above as well as the observation of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the interim order, the conclusion of the learned
District Judge, as recorded in para 25 of the order, is hereby modified to the
extent that the appellants shall be entitled to receive compensation by applying
a multiplier factor of two, in case the Hon’ble Apex Court holds that factor of
two will be applicable in terms of the notification issued by the Central
Government in the pending case of National Highways Authority of India and
Another vs Badrilal and Others SLP(C) Nos.4081-4082 of 2023 for which no
separate application under Section 73 of the Act for re-determination of the
compensation will be required to be filed by the appellants. The concerned
authority shall redetermine the compensation by applying factor of two in case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11928
10 AA-164-2025
the Hon’ble Apex Court affirms the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Badrilal (Supra), within a period of three months from the
date of order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the meanwhile the respondents
shall disburse the amount as calculated by them as per the application of factor
of one, if not already disbursed.”
14. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered
by the aforesaid order of this Court. As such, it is hereby held that as far as
the application of factor is concerned, the direction as given by this Court in
para 16 of the order passed in case of Gani (supra) shall apply mutatis
mutandis in the present bunch of cases also.
With the aforesaid, the appeals stand disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected files.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
vidya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SREEVIDYA
Signing time: 4/28/2026
6:41:17 PM
