An appellate court must ensure compensation for land acquisition aligns with statutory provisions while addressing solatium and additional claims, confirming previous awards while modifying based on legal interpretations.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Arbitration Appeal is filed to set aside the order of compensation awarded by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai in Arbitration O.P.No. 34 of 2013 dated 14.03.2019.

2. Heard DR.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Project Officer, National Highways Authority and Mr.Govindaraj, learned counsel for the first respondent.

3.....

(a) Both the learned counsel represented that the matter is covered to a certain extent by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, dated 01.08.2024 made in CMA(MD)No.517 of 2022.

(b) In CMA(MD)No.517 of 2022, the first respondent is the land owner. The land has been acquired by the National Highways Authorities and the proceedings and compensation have been incorporated as required under the Act. Aggrieved against the award passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai in Arbitration O.P.No.21 of 2015 dated 15.07.2019, the National Highways Authority has preferred the said CMA(MD)No.517 of 2022 in respect of the very same village and in respect of the very same notifications.

4. In the instant case, initially, the District Collector/Arbitrator has passed an award in A.C.No.55 of 2007 in B8/83351/2002, dated 30.10.2006 and to set aside the arbitral award dated 31.05.2013, the first respondent/petitioner has filed an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai in Arbitration O.P.No.34 of 2013 under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After elaborate discussion and also taking note of the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5, the learned Principal District Judge/Appellate Authority has passed the following award:

“...35. In the result, this petition is partly allowed with cost and the Award dated 31.05.2013 passed by the District Collector/Arbitrator, Madurai passed in Arbitration Case No. 55/2007 in B8/83351/2002, dated 30.10.2006 is set aside and the petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs. 82,79,275/- towards the acquired land. The petitioner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% for the enhanced compensation amount from the date of possession till the date of deposit. Advocate fees Rs.7500/-. Time for deposit is three months.”

5. Aggrieved against the said award, the National Highways Authority of India has filed the present appeal under Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/erstwhile land owner would contend that he is entitled to 30% solatium and 12% additional amount of enhanced amount by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 129-159 of 2014, dated 21.04.2016.

7. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the land owner is not entitled to claim 30% solatium and 12% additional amount since the same is acquired under the National Highways Authorities. The learned Principal District Judge, in exercising its powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has partly allowed to the limited extent as indicated in the Judgment and arrived at the compensation by including 30% solatium and 12% additional amount on the market value towards acquired land to an extent of 211.88 cents in this case and the award amount deposited and withdrawn are also detailed therein. In respect of the very same notification and in respect of the very same village, batch of cases have been disposed of in CMA (MD) Nos. 19 of 2023, 432 of 2023, 630 of 2022, 631 of 2022, 1187 of 2022, 548 of 2022, 526 of 20