Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
T. K. Paneerselvan (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Arbitrator cum District Collector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 17.03.2020 made in W.P.No.35558 of 2016.
The lis on hand has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 17.03.2020 passed in WP.No.35558 of 2016. The unsuccessful writ petitioners are before us. The Arbitral Award passed by the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector under Section 3G(5) of The National Highways Act was under challenge in the writ proceedings. It is not in dispute that the land belonged to the appellants were acquired for Road projects by the National Highways Authority of India. The due process contemplated were followed. Award passed and compensation determined by the Authorities. Not satisfied with the Award and by claiming Solatium, the appellants/land owners approached the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act. The Arbitrator declined to grant solatium on the ground that some cases are pending before the High Court. However, the Arbitrator enhanced the compensation. The said Arbitral Award is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr.K.Sudhakar would contend that the appellants are entitled for
The court ruled that the Section 34 Court lacks jurisdiction to modify an arbitral award to grant a statutory entitlement, such as solatium, when it was not part of the original frame of reference.
Section 3-J of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1956 was declared unconstitutional, entitling landowners to solatium and interest for acquired land.
The court affirmed the right of land losers to receive statutory benefits of solatium and interest, emphasizing the necessity of including these in the Arbitrator's Award.
Acquisition of Land - Arbitrator granted enhancement of compensation - Arbitrator while rendering Award correctly took into consideration entire material on record, while determining rate at which co....
The court upheld the discretion under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to remit matters to the Arbitrator for addressing gaps in the award, particularly regarding solatium.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
