Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Mad) 1248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
R. Srinivasan - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector/Arbitrator, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu & Others – Respondents
C.R.P. [PD] Nos. 1388, 1389, 1390 & 1391 of 2020 & C.M.P. Nos. 8093, 8094, 8096 & 8099 of 2020
Decided On : 07-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:David Tyagaraj, Advocate
For the Respondents:S. Jaganathan, Government Advocate, R3, M/s. S.R. Sumathy, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the potential value of acquired lands should be assessed based on the market value at the relevant point of time, emphasizing the importance of considering the date of acquisition or passing of the award in fixing the potential value.

Headnote:
Arbitration Act - Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(6) - Section 3G(7)(a)(b)(c)(d) - [Arbitration Act, Land Acquisition, National Highways Act, 1956] - The court discussed the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the National Highways Act, 1956, particularly Section 3G(6) and Section 3G(7)(a)(b)(c)(d), in the context of land acquisition for the expansion of National Highways and the determination of compensation. The court emphasized the criteria for assessing potential value and the relevance of the date of acquisition or passing of the award in fixing the potential value, highlighting the importance of considering the market value at the relevant point of time.
Fact of the Case:

The lands owned by the petitioner were acquired by the National Highways Authority of India, and the petitioner filed Arbitration Original Petitions for enhancement of compensation. Pending the petitions, the petitioner filed Interlocutory Applications for appointment of an advocate commissioner to assess the potential value of the lands. The court dismissed the applications, leading to the filing of Civil Revision Petitions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the potential value projected by the petitioner was an outcome of the acquisition and subsequent developments, and the relevant date for potential value should be the date of acquisition or passing of the award. The court held that the dismissal of the applications did not suffer from any irregularity or illegality.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of potential value for the acquired lands, the relevance of the date of acquisition or passing of the award in fixing the potential value, and the criteria for assessing potential value in the context of land acquisition for National Highways.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the potential value should be fixed on the basis of market value under the Sale Deeds of the adjacent lands at the relevant point of time, not with regard to the present time, which is more than 10 to 15 years after acquisition.
Final Decision: All the four Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed with cost, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in C.R.P.No.1388/2020: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree in I.A.No.945 of 2019 in Arb.O.P.No.13 of 2017, dated 10.02.2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Villupuram.

C.R.P.No.1389/2020: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree in I.A.No.924 of 2019 in Arb.O.P.No.186 of 2018, dated 10.02.2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Villupuram.

C.R.P.No.1390/2020: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree in I.A.No.946 of 2019 in Arb.O.P.No.51 of 2016, dated 10.02.2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Villupuram.

C.R.P.No.1391/2020: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree in I.A.No.927 of 2019 in Arb.O.P.No.168 of 2013, dated 10.02.2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Villupuram.)

Common Order

1. Since the issue involved in all the four Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up for disposal by a common order.

2. The lands belonged to the petitioner in all the four civil revision petitions were acquired by the National Highways Authority of India, the third respondent herein and the third respondent has paid compensation to the revision petitioner and award has been enhanced by the District Collector, the first respondent herein. Invoking the Arbitration Act, the revision petitioner has filed Arb.O.P.Nos.13 of 2017, 186 of 2018, 51 of 2016 and 168 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram.

3. Pending the above Arb.O.Ps., the revision petitioner, who is the land owner in all the four cases, had filed four Interlocutory Applications under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 r/w. Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC, viz., (1) I.A.No.945 of 2019 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land which is situated in S.No.11/1B2, at Kidangal Village, Tindivanam Town, Villupuram District measuring to an extent of 270 square meters or 2906 sq. fts and assess the potential value; (2) I.A.No.924 of 2019 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land which is situated in S.No.11/1B1B, at Kidangal Village, Tindivanam Town, Villupuram District, measuring to an extent of 285 square meters i.e., 3067.71 sq. fts and assess the potential value; (3) I.A.No.946 of 2019 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land which is situated in S.No.11/2B2, at Kidangal Village, Tindivanam Town, Villupuram District measuring to an extent of 00483 square meters i.e., 5199 sq. fts. and assess the potential value and (4) I.A.No.927 of 2019 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the land which is situated in S.No.11/1 and 11/2 in Ward “F” Block - 19 at Kidangal Village, Tindivanam Town, Villupuram District, measuring to an extent of 121578 sq. ft. or 2.79 acres and assess the potential value. The lands mentioned in the first three I.As. were acquired for the purpose of expansion of National Highways 66 (Pondy-Tindivanam four lane) and award was passed by the second respondent in N.K.No.441/2007 N.H.66/DINDI, dated 18.12.2009. The land mentioned in I.A.No.927 of 2019 was acquired for the purpose of formation of bye pass road at NH 45, Tindivanam, Villupuram and Trichy and award was passed by the second respondent in N.K.A.No.020/2003/N.H.45/DINDI, dated 18.03.2006.

4. The grievance of the petitioner erstwhile land owner is that the second respondent, while considering the potential value of the lands mentioned in I.A.Nos.945 and 946 of 2019, which have been acquired for the purpose of laying and expanding the said Highways, the Authority have arbitrary and illegally fixed at Rs.192/- per sq. ft., thereby, the second respondent has failed to consider the potential value of the revision petitioner’s lands.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document