Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19621
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
G. Karunakaran – Respondent
The judgment clarified that tribunals under the NHAI Act can determine compensation based on substantive evidence, reaffirming judicial oversight of arbitral decisions in matters of public policy and fair compensation.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Acquisition - National Highways Act - Sections 3(A), 3(G)(5), 3(G)(7); Land Acquisition Act - Section 23(1)(A) - The court analyzed the provisions of the NHAI Act allowing for fair compensation determination by an arbitrator, while also addressing the impact of relevant Supreme Court rulings on compensation standards and judicial intervention in arbitration awards, ultimately upholding the enhanced compensation awarded to the landowners.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an appeal by the National Highways Authority against an arbitration award that enhanced compensation for land acquired for expanding a national highway after the initial determination by the Collector was deemed inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the arbitration tribunal appropriately exercised its jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to enhance the compensation based on evidence presented, which showed the potential value of the land was not adequately considered by the initial authority.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine compensation under the Arbitration Act, whether there were legal infirmities in the tribunal's award, and if the landowners were entitled to compensation under Section 23(1)(A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the tribunal had the authority to set aside the initial award in favor of determining fair compensation based on comprehensive evidence, even amid conflicting judicial interpretations regarding the power of modification of arbitral awards.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the compensation was re-determined in favor of the landowners amounting to Rs.3,75,451/- with interest.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN .J.]
The appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.47 of 2023 has been filed by the National Highways Authority, challenging the Arbitration award passed in A.R.O.P.No.51/2013 dated 14.03.2019 filed by the land owner to set aside the arbitration award by the Collector/Arbitrator dated 04.07.2013.
2. The first respondent owned lands along Madurai-Trichy National Highways Road in the Survey Nos.11/5B, 11/7C, situated at “Melamadai Bit.II 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 117 sq.mtr., and 120 sq.metre and totally 237 sq.metre or 5.856 cents of house site 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.39.54 per Sq.mtr., or Rs.1,600/- per cent and the compensation was determined for the respondent at Rs.10,308/-. 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 34 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 Act1894 (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, Madurai 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.D.Rajagopal:
3.1. The learne
