2025:MHC:2706 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ WA No. 3324 of 2023 1. The Project Director National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit -Chennai, “SRI TOWER”, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP), Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 32 Appellant(s)

Vs

1. S.Jathan Bai Alias S.Jathan Devi

2.The Competent Authority cum Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highways 205, No. 3 and 4, Lal Bagadhur Sasthiri St, Periyakuppam Railway Station, (Near) Thulasi Theatre, Thiruvallur 602 001

3.The District Collector Office of the Thiruvallur District Collector, Master Plan Complex NH

205, Chennai - Tiruttani Hwy, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 001 Respondent(s)

PRAYER To set aside the common judgement passed by the Learned Judge in WP.No.17922 of 2021 dated 16.11.2021 and thus render justice.

For Appellant(s): Mr.Su.Srinivasan Standing Counsel for NHAI For Respondent(s): No appearance for R1 Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader For R2 & R3

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The 1^st respondent/original writ petitioner has filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking direction against the 1^st and 2^nd respondents therein to deposit the compensation amount as per the award passed by the Arbitrator/District Collector under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and disburse the same. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by passing the following orders:

“4. Accordingly, all the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(1) The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount as per the Arbitral Award together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, with the competent authority within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(2) If the respondents failed to obtain any interim order against the arbitral award in the Arbitration Original Petition on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the competent authority is directed to disburse the compensation amount which was deposited by the respondents forthwith.”

2. The learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that none of the grounds raised by the appellant was considered by the arbitrator, while passing the award. The issue of limitation was subsequently raised and the same has not been addressed by the arbitrator. Other factual aspects were also raised. However, without considering the grounds raised by the present appellant, the award has been passed, thereby awarding an exorbitant compensation amount.

3. The appellant has filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1996') challenging the said award, but, due to the fact that the officer in-charge to register got changed twice, the application was not registered.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that in fact, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. The writ petition is not maintainable. The original petitioner had the liberty to file execution. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petition is not maintainable, where there is a specific alternate remedy available under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 for execution. However, still directed the appellant to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and further observed that, if any interim order against the arbitral award is not obtained within four weeks, the competent authority was directed to disburse the compensation amount. Learned Single Judge has not decided on the merits of the contentions raised