Once an award is passed under the National Highways Act, it cannot be revisited by the same authority except for clerical corrections.

ORDER :

1. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.10607 of 2023 challenges the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc.No.661/2019/A1 dated 28.12.2022 in respect of award No.9/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-4) (Missing) and to consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation for Trees situated in S.Nos.320/5B, 608/1,2 & 616/1, Sirangadu Village, Dindigul West Taluk, Dindigul District, based on the award of the second respondent dated 15.07.2022.

2. The writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.11052 & 11053 of 2023 challenges the impugned order of the first respondent in Roc.No. 667/2019/A1 dated 28.11.2022 in respect of award No.10/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-6) and Roc.No.667/2019/A1 dated 28.11.2022 in respect of award No.10/2019 (pkg-1) (Additional-7) (Missing) respectively and to consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation for Red Sandal Trees situated in S.Nos 320/5B and 320/3B2, respectively, situated at Jambuthuraikottai Village, Nilakottai Taluk, based on the award of the first respondent dated 04.07.2022.

3. I have heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(MD)No.10607 of 2023 and the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(MD)Nos.11052 and 11053 of 2023 and Mr.P.Karthick, learned counsel for the fourth respondent in W.P.(MD)No. 10607 of 2023 and the third respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.11052 and 11053 of 2023. I have gone through the records and also considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The common question in all these writ petitions is as to whether when awards have already been passed by the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, whether the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, is vested with any power to re-determine value arrived at already and pass a fresh award.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mr.H.Arumugam, would submit that the lands belonging to the petitioners were valuable teak wood tree, eucalyptus trees, silver coconut trees and tamarind trees, etc., were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, being the competent authority has fixed the compensation and passed awards dated 28.12.2022, 28.11.2022 and 28.11.2022 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner in all the writ petitions have accepted the compensation amount fixed by the competent authority. However, the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, has sought for a valuation report from the Forest Committee under the head of District Forest Officer, Dindigul, in respect of valuation of teak wood trees, eucalyptus trees, silver coconut trees and tamarind trees, etc.. The Forest Committee has fixed a value and forwarded a valuation report on 29.06.2022. The Deputy General Manager (T) and Project Director, has rejected the said report and subsequently, the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer has proceeded to obtain a reassessment report on 02.11.2022 and based on the said report, compensation has been refixed in proceedings which is under challenge writ petitions.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioners have already challenged the award in their favour as provided under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act and the appeals are yet to be taken on file by the District Collector, the Arbitrator. The main ground of challenge to the second award passed by the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, is that once the awards had already been passed in the year 2019, the Special Officer cum District Revenue Officer, had no power to pass further award. He would further contend that if at all the authority was aggrieved by the award, the only course open was to challenge the same by resorting to Arbitration as available under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act.

7. Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner