Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
The Project Director – Appellant
Versus
T.Sivasamy – Respondent
Compensation - Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 (Sections 3(A), 3(G)(5), 3(G)(7)) & Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Section 34) - The court held that the learned Principal District Judge had jurisdiction to determine fair compensation for land acquired under the NHAI Act, emphasizing the duty of the authorities to provide just compensation, which was not granted in the original award.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the National Highways Authority challenging an arbitration award that adjusted the compensation for land acquired under the NHAI Act. Objections from landowners were dismissed initially, prompting them to seek enhancement through the arbitration process, eventually leading to this appeal after a re-evaluation by the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Judge correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to enhance compensation based on proper evaluation. The original authority failed to consider relevant documents and evidences, resulting in inadequate compensation.
Issues: Whether the District Judge had the jurisdiction to modify the compensation awarded by the original arbitration tribunal and whether the landowners are entitled to compensation under relevant provisions of the NHAI and land acquisition laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the District Judge could rightfully calculate compensation under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act when the original decision was deemed patently illegal and against public policy.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the compensation of Rs. 1,41,45,204 with interest awarded to the landowners.
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN .J.]
The appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No.88 of 2024 has been filed by the National Highways Authority, challenging the Arbitration award passed in A.R.O.P.No.33 of 2018, dated 23.06.2023, filed by the land owner to set aside the arbitration award by the Collector/Arbitrator dated 22.02.2018.
2. The first respondent owned lands along Dindigul – Theni and Theni - Kumuli National Highways Roads in the Survey No.680/2 (partly), situated at “Thamaraikulam Bit II Village”, Theni District. The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways (Department of Road, Transport and Highways) issued the notification dated 18.06.2012 for acquisition of an extent of 2715 sq.mtr., or 67.086 cents of dry lands, trees and structures 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-Extn. & 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.61.80/- per sq.mtr., or Rs.2501/- per cent and the compensation was determined for the respondent at Rs.9,68,393/-. 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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
