IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. Sundar, P.B.Balaji, JJ.
A.Ismail Sait - Appellant
Vs.
The Competent Authority Land Acquisition and Special District Revenue Officer National Highways [NH-45] Villupuram District - Respondent
C.M.A.No.386 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.12835 of 2018
Decided On : 04-06-2024
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Sundar, J.
The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by a land owner aggrieved by the order of the Principal District Court, Villupuram, in Arbitral OP.No.37/2009 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “1996 Act”) as against the Award of the District Collector as an Arbitrator under Section 3-G[5] of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “NH Act”).
2. The following facts are not in dispute :
2.1.An extent of 12.64.5 Hectares of wet lands and an extent of 0.18.0 Hectares of dry lands in Vazhuthareddy Village were acquired for the formation of By Pass Road to bypass Villupuram Town in NH-45. The entire extent of lands in Vazhuthareddy Village comprised in different survey numbers were acquired under the NH Act and the Notification under section 3-A[1] of the Act was published in the Gazette on 30.10.2003. Thereafter, a Notification under Section 3-D[1] of the Act was published on 21.04.2004. A notice was published in local newspapers inviting claims from persons interested in the lands acquired to appear in person or by an agent before the Competent Authority, namely, the District Revenue Officer, Villupuram, to state the nature of interest the claimants have in the acquired lands. There is no dispute that the land owners attended the enquiry and it is recorded by the Competent Authority that the persons interested did not raise any objections as to the measurements recorded.
2.2.It is admitted that an extent of 38 ares in RS.No.50/2, which is classified as Nanja land in Vazhuthareddy Village, was acquired from the holding of the appellant. The Competent Authority, namely the 1st respondent in the Appeal, collected the sales statistics for the period from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2003, i.e., one year prior to the date of publication of the Notification under Section 3-A[1] of the NH Act. Though it was noticed that 117 sale transactions had been registered during the relevant period, the Competent Authority, while fixing compensation by proceedings dated 05.10.2004, discarded 116 documents on the ground that the lands covered under the sale exemplars are either far away from the land under acquisition or on the ground that the soil and 'taram' are different. Several other sale transactions were discarded on the ground that the documents were registered for getting higher compensation. It is also to be noted that some of the sale exemplars were discarded on the ground that the sales had occurred long before the date of publication of Notification under Section 3-A[1] of the NH Act. The first respondent relied upon the Sale Deed dated 30.10.2003, vide Document No.3350/2003, where an extent of 6397.75 sq.ft., of land in RS.No.248 and 248/1B was sold for a sum of Rs.1,27,000/-. On the basis of the said Sale Deed, market value was fixed for all the acquired lands at Rs.19.85 per sq.ft. In other words, the compensation was determined on the basis of market value at Rs.8,64,666/- per acre or Rs.21,35,725/- per Hectare.
3. Since the quantum fixed by the Competent Authority was not acceptable to the appellant, he filed an application for enhancement of compensation before the District Collector who is the Arbitrator. It is to be noted that the appellant produced before the Arbitrator, three sales statistics to show that the market value for the acquired land would range from Rs.41.67p. per sq.ft., to Rs.117/- per sq.ft. The appellant produced a document dated 27.03.2002 to show that the value for the land in S.No.17/3A in Vazhuthareddy Village was sold at the rate of Rs.72.67/- per sq.ft. The 2nd document filed by the appellant before the Arbitrator is the Sale Deed dated 08.10.2003 in respect of a land in S.No.3/1A2 and S.No.4/2A. The market value reflected in the 2nd Sale Deed is Rs.117/- per sq.ft. The 3rd document is dated 30.10.2001, where an extent of 960 sq.ft. in S.No.26/1 was sold at Rs.41.67p. per sq.ft. It is to be noted that the 1st an
State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V.Narasimhan reported in 1975 (2) SCC 377
U.P.Avas Ekam Vikas Parishad vs. Jainul Islam and another reported in 1998 2 SCC 467
State of Uttarkhand v. Mohan Singh reported in 2012 (13) SCC 281
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1979 (2) SCC 529
ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705
A.C. Companies Ltd vs. P.N. Sharma and Anr.
P.Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition reported in AIR 1965 SC 1017
Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao reported in (1973) 1 SCC 500
McDERMOTT International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd and others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 181
Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49
Dyna Technologies Private Limited vs. Crompton Greaves Limited reported in (2019) 20 SCC 1
The court affirmed the necessity of a judicial approach in determining compensation for land acquisition, allowing for modification of arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Concilia....
The court upheld the authority to modify arbitration awards in compensation cases if the original decision is perverse or against public policy, ensuring fair compensation is granted to landowners.
The court established that under statutory arbitration for land acquisition, the authority must ensure fair compensation based on proper assessment and documentation, highlighting a constitutional ob....
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 affirmed the discretion under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to remit matters to the Arbitrator for reconsideration of solatium, following the Supreme Court's ruling ....
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.
The court affirmed that under Section 34, a Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to reappraise evidence in arbitral awards and may only modify awards for clear errors, not on merits.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land awards; no re-appreciation of evidence or modification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.