Back
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.Mohankumar – Appellant
Versus
National Highway Authority of India – Respondent
CRP(MD) 1898 2023
ARBITRATION - LAND ACQUISITION - WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL - OBJECTION PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - LIMITATION - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 - SECTION 34(3) - NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 - SECTION 3A(1), 3D(1), 3G(3) - REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS (UNIFORM PROCEDURE FOR INQUIRY AND DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION) RULES, 2013 - RULE 12(2) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 41 RULE 22(4) - Petitioners' objection petition to the withdrawal of appeal by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in land acquisition proceedings is not maintainable as they have no locus standi to object to the withdrawal. The limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be extended, and the petitioners have not independently challenged the arbitral award.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, landowners whose land was acquired for the widening of NH-47, filed an arbitration claim before the District Collector under the National Highways Act, 1956, seeking enhanced compensation. The District Collector enhanced the compensation, but the NHAI challenged the award before the Principal District Judge. Subsequently, the NHAI withdrew its appeal, and the petitioners filed objection petitions to the withdrawal. The Principal District Judge dismissed the objection petitions as withdrawn, without disposing of them on merits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners' objection petition to the withdrawal of the appeal by the NHAI was not maintainable as they had no locus standi to object to the withdrawal. The court also held that the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could not be extended, and the petitioners had not independently challenged the arbitral award.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' objection petition to the withdrawal of the appeal by the NHAI was maintainable? 2. Whether the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be extended?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not provide for cross objections or cross appeals against an arbitral award. 2. If a party is aggrieved by an arbitral award, they must independently initiate proceedings to challenge it. 3. The limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be extended.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' civil revision petitions, holding that they were devoid of merits.
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1898 and 1899 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on
31.08.2023
Pronounced on
21.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P.(MD) Nos.1898 and 1899 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.9500, 9502 of 2023
1.A.Mohankumar
...Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD)No.1898 of 2023
2. Santhi
...Petitioner in C.R.P.(MD) No.1899 of 2023
-Vs-
1. The National Highways Authority of India
Represented by its Project Director
PIU-Nagercoil,
at No.395/3-1, M.S Road, Majestic colony,
Near Ayyapan Kovil, Parvathipuram
Nagercoil – 629 003.
2. The Arbitrator/District Collector
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Special District Revenue Officer (LA-NH),
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1898 and 1899 of 2023
Tirunelveli,
Nagercoil.
...Respondents in both the C.R.Ps.
Prayer in C.R.P(MD).No.1898 of 2023: The Civil Revision Petition is filed
under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order made in
Ar.O.P.No.302 of 2022 dated 09.02.2023 on the file of Learned Principal
District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil and remand the above
Ar.O.P.No.302 of 2022 to the Learned Principal District Judge for fresh
consideration on the objection petition filed by the petitioner on merits and
in accordance with law, and allow this civil revision petition.
Prayer in C.R.P(MD).No.1899 of 2023: The Civil Revision Petition is filed
under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order made in
Ar.O.P.No.316 of 2022 dated 09.02.2023 on the file of Learned Principal
District Judge, Kanniyakumari at Nagercoil and remand the above
Ar.O.P.No.316 of 2022 to the learned Principal District Judge for fresh
consideration on the objection petition filed by the petitioner on merits and
in accordance with law, and allow the civil revision petition.
For Petitioners in both C.R.Ps. : Mr.V.S.Kumaraguru
For Respondents in both C.R.Ps :
For R1 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
2/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1898 and 1899 of 2023
Standing Counsel for R1
For R2 & R3 : G.Suriyananth
Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are preferred against the orders passed
in Ar.O.P.No.302 of 2022 and Ar.O.P.No.316 of 2022 dated 09.02.2023 on
the file of learned Principle District Judge, Kanniyakumri at Nagercoil
dismissing the same as withdrawn, without disposing the objection petitions
filed by the petitioners in Ar.O.P.No.302 of 2022 and Ar.O.P.No.316 of
2022.
2. According to the revision petitioners, the land acquisition
proceedings were initiated for widening of NH-47 Road. The notification
under section 3A (1) of NH Act was published in the Gazette of India on
23.03.2010 Section 3 (D) declaration was published in the Gazetted on
3/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1898 and 1899 of 2023
25.02.2011. The enquiry under section 3 (G)(3) of NH Act was conducted
on 04.08.2011, and the award was passed by the Competent Authority on
28.12.2015. The award was passed after the commencement of RFCTLARR
Act 2013. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made in
Parsem Singh vs. UOI dated 19.09.2019 reported in 2019 (9) SCC 304, the
Solatium of 30% and interest is payable to the land owners. Aggrieved
against the award, the Petitioners have filed Arbitration Claim before the
2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent under section 3 (G)(5) of NH Act,
enhanced the compensation amount. But the 2nd Respondent fixed the
compensation under the impression that the lands are wetlands. Aggrieved
against the award passed by the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent has filed
Ar.O.P.Nos.302 and 316 of 2022 before the Learned Principal District Judge
and the Petitioners also filed objection Petitions in the above Ar.O.P.Nos.
302 and 316 of 2022.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petition
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
