SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P. DHANABAL
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND PROJECT DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH CHANDRA BANSALL – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 30.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL C.M.A.No.2364 of 2022 &

C.M.P.Nos.18432 of 2022 & 3204 of 2023 The Deputy General Manager and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, 259/1, Salem Main Road, Near KAKC Petrol Bunk, Krishnagiri - 635 001. ...Petitioner vs.

1.Ramesh Chandra Bansall

2.The Special Tahsildar (National Highways)

Land Acquisition, Vellore - 9.

3.Arbitrator-cum-Vellore District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore - 9. ...Respondents Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 37(1) & (2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the order in Arbitration O.P.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore, dated

31.07.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.S.R.Sundaram for R1 Mr.M.Rajendiran, Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the Principal District Court, Vellore, in Arbitration O.P.No.2 of 2016, dated 31.07.2019.

2. The short facts necessary to dispose this appeal are as follows:-

2.1. The appellant is the National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Krishnagiri and third party to the Arbitral proceedings. The second respondent herein acquired the lands of the first respondent herein for the appellant. The property of the first respondent in S.No.240/1E to an extent of 550 square meter, situated at Vinnamangalam Village, Ambur Taluk, were acquired for NH4 extension. The compensation was fixed by the competent Authority at Rs.30.27/- per square meter. Thereby, the first respondent herein took the matter to Arbitrator-cum-District Collector, Vellore and the Arbitrator enhanced the value for the punja lands from Rs.30.27 to Rs.143.49/- per square meter and also awarded 9% interest. Aggrieved by the Arbitral Award, the first respondent herein has preferred Arbitration Original Petition before the Principal District Court, Vellore and the Principal District Court allowed the petition and enhanced the compensation by awarding a sum of Rs.537/- per square meter and awarded a sum of Rs.9,08,136/- in total. The Principal District Court also held that after deducting the sum already received by the first respondent, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,16,141/- with interest at the rate of 9% Per Annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal after obtaining leave of this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Principal District Judge ought not to have enhanced the compensation to a sum of Rs.537/- per square meter from Rs.143.49/- per square meter awarded by the Arbitrator and ought not have modified the award dated 23.11.2012, contrary to Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The Arbitrator himself has enhanced the compensation from Rs.30.27/- per square meter to Rs.143.49/- per square meter. The acquired land was classified as 'agricultural dry'. The competent Authority based on the sale deed pertaining to dry lands has fixed the compensation at Rs.30.27/- per square meter and the same was modified by the Arbitrator based on the report of the Expert Committee. However, the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, failed to appreciate the same and without any valid ground, enhanced the award. Therefore, it is against Section 34(2) of the Act. The application under Section 34 of the Act has to be filed within 90 days and thereafter, 30 days. But, after dismissal of the Writ Petition, the first respondent has not filed Arbitration Original Petition before the District Court within the limitation period and it was only filed on 12.11.2012. He ought to have filed the petition on or before 13.04.2013. Thereby, the claim is barred by limitation. Therefore, the order passed by the D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top