Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19614
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
A.Rajeswari – Respondent
The court confirmed its jurisdiction to adjust an arbitrator's award when fairness in compensation is compromised, ensuring just outcomes for landowners under the National Highways Act.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3-G(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34(2) - The court found that the arbitration award was unjust and modified it based on relevant market data, emphasizing the right to fair compensation under statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The landowners challenged the compensation awarded for their land acquired for highway expansion, contending it was inadequate. They appealed after the District Collector dismissed their claims, leading to an arbitration that revised the compensation.
Issues: Whether the learned judge correctly exercised authority under the Arbitration Act to modify the award and determine compensation, and whether landowners were entitled to additional compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it holds the authority to amend the arbitrator's award if it lacks fairness and equity, especially in statutory arbitration cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, awarding the landowner Rs.24,43,494 with interest, modifying the previous arbitration decision.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN .J.]
The appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.162 of 2024 has been filed by the National Highways Authority, challenging the Arbitration award passed in A.R.O.P.No.33/2017 dated 15.04.2021 filed by the land owner to set aside the arbitration award by the Collector/Arbitrator dated 12.01.2017.
2. The first respondent owned lands along Dindigul – Theni and Theni - Kumuli National Highways Roads in the Survey No.2100/2, situated at “Devathanapatti Village”, Theni District. The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (Department of Road, Transport and Highways) issued the notification dated 11.11.2011, for acquisition of an extent of 1891 sq.mtr., or 46.725 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 Dindigul – Theni and Theni - Kumuli (NH45-Ext & 220) 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.29.30/- per sq.mtr., or Rs.1,186/- per cent and the compensation was determined for the respondent at Rs.3,34,891/-. 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/Arbitrator, Theni (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, Theni under Section 34(2) of the . 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 in 2019 (9) SCC 304 (herein after called “Tarsem Singh case”).
2.2. Challenging the determination of the amount by the learned Principal District Judge, Theni under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the National Highways Authority filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the Memorandum of grounds of appeal.
3. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for NHAI, namely, Thiru.SU.Srinivasan:
3.1. The learn
