Back
S. S. SUNDAR, P. B. BALAJI
A. Ismail Sait – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority Land Acquisition and Special District Revenue Officer National Highways [NH-45] Villupuram District – Respondent
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 Reve
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.
Limited judicial interference with arbitral land compensation awards under Sec.34/37; enhancement for commercial use upheld; separate easementary compensation allowed in partial acquisition affecting....
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
