The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Act does not prescribe any time limit for filing applications for enhanced compensation, and the procedural law cannot deny the right of landowners for just and reasonable compensation.

With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Mr. C.E. Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr. R. Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 4.

3. In these writ petitions, the lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired for the formation of the four way laning of roads in NH – 47. The petitioners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and the project has been implemented. The petitioners have claimed enhanced compensation for which purpose they have filed applications before the District Collector on 09.12.2015 and 14.12.2015 respectively to consider their case and grant enhanced compensation. These applications appears to have not been considered though other similarly placed persons cases were considered and it is stated that arbitration proceedings are in progress. Since the petitioners were not permitted to participate in the arbitration proceedings, they submitted representations to the second respondent on 28.12.2015. In the said representations, they have reiterated the contentions raised in their earlier representations and stated that the fixation of land value is inadequate.

4. Section 3 G of the National Highways Act, 1956 deals with determination of the amount payable as compensation. Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 G of the said Act states that where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.

5. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is an Arbitrator so appointed to arbitrate the issues relating to claims for enhanced compensation. Statute does not prescribe any time limit within which such an application has to be filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the Act does not provide for any outer limit for any application to be made for claiming the enhanced compensation. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned order stating that the application for enhancement should have been made within a period of three years is not sustainable.

7. Further, in another set of cases wherein identical issue came up for consideration, this Court passed an order in W.P.Nos.1481 & 1482 of 2016 dated 18.01.2016 (P.S. Moorthy and another V. The District Collector/Arbitrtor, Erode and another). The operative portion reads as follows:

"3. It is accepted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the legal issue involved in this case is covered by an earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.36544 to 36549 of 2015 dated 08.12.2015 (C. Vembusamy and others V. The District Collector, Erode and another). The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

"6. The learned counsel for the respondents as well as the National Highways Department would submit that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would apply and therefore, the period of limitations will be three years. However, the impugned order does not refer to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and refers only to the National Highways Act, 1956 which does not provide for any specific period of limitation.

7. Before the First Bench of this Court a Writ Petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.32197 of 2012 [R.GOPALAKRISHNAN v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT & 6 ORS] on behalf of the land owners whose lands were taken by the National Highways Department for the expansion of NH Road 68. The Division Bench considered the matter, directed the claims to be considered by the respective Collectors namely the District Collector of Villpuram, and the District Collector, Salem. The said order dated 4.12.2012 reads as follows:

"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, styled as public inerest litigation, the petitioner seeks a writ of ma