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.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.503 of 2022 has been filed by the National Highways Authority, challenging the Arbitration award passed in A.R.O.P.No.17/2015 dated 30.10.2019 filed by the land owner to set aside the arbitration award by the Collector/Arbitrator dated 17.03.2006.

2. The first respondent owned lands along Madurai-Trichy National Highways Road in the Survey No.33/1, situated at “Elanthaikulam Village”, Madurai District. The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (Department of Road, Transport and Highways) issued the notification dated 08.07.2004, for acquisition of an extent of 4450 sq.Mtrs or 109.957 cents of dry land belonging to the respondents’ under Section 3 (A) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 (herein after called as “NHAI Act”) for expanding and laying four way track (National Highways road from Madurai- Trichy (NH45B) under “the Golden Quadrilateral Scheme”. The National Highways Authority of India, (herein after called “NHAI”) is the implementing authority. The land owners submitted their objection to the acquisition and the same was not considered by the Project Director under the NHAI Act. The competent authority under the “NHAI Act”, namely, the “District Revenue Officer (herein after called as CA/DRO)” considering that the land was situated in the vital area informed the land owners about the appropriate compensation that would be determined and paid and issued the 3D notice and directed the land owners to participate in the award enquiry, after taking possession. The land owners participated and produced the documents and claimed higher price and sought to determine fair and just compensation along with solatium and interest. The competent authority/District Revenue Officer, fixed the value of the land, market value of Rs.17.17 per Sq.Mts, and the compensation was determined for the respondent at Rs.84,047/-. But, CA/DRO has not considered the documents produced by the landowners.

2.1. Aggrieved over the same, the land owners have approached the District Collector, Madurai/Arbitrator (herein after called as “Arbitrator/Collector”) under the NHAI Act, by submitting the application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as prescribed Under Section 3 -G.(5) of NHAI Act. They submitted the relevant documents and also showed the topography of the acquired land to show the potentiality of land and sought enhancement of the compensation along with the payment of the compensation under Section 23(1)(A) and Solatium and interest as per the LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 (herein after called as “Act 1894”). The Arbitrator simply dismissed the claim of the land holders and hence, each land holder has preferred the arbitration original petition before the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai under Section 3 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Principal District Judge, by impugned orders partly accepted the plea of the land owners and set aside the award passed by the District Collector and passed the award determining the compensation on the basis of the documents produced by both sides and granted solatium, Additional amount and corresponding interest. The Tribunal also granted solatium additional amount under 23(1)(a) of LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 (herein called old act 1894), considering the development of law ie., that the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT section 3J was struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported