IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
Poomalai – Appellant
Versus
The Arbitrator/District Collector, Villupuram – Respondent
C.M.A. No. 3232 of 2021
Decided On : 15-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land acquisition process and initial compensation under nh act. (Para 2) |
| 2. parties' contentions on valuation and evidence. (Para 4) |
| 3. limited scope of section 34/37 interference in arbitral awards. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arbitrator's reasoned enhancement; no merit in higher claims. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; order upheld. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant/land owner against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.12.2020 passed in Arbitration O.P.No.97 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows:
The land in Survey No.216/2B, measuring 5700 sq.mtr. (Main Award) and 385 sq.mtr. (Additional Award), totalling 6085 sq.mtr. or 65,499 sq.ft., situated in Chinnasalem Village, Chinnasalem Taluk, Villupuram District, belonging to the appellant/land owner, was acquired by the 2nd respondent for laying 4-way lane road under the National Highways Authorities Act for the Salem-Ulundurpet section of National Highway No.68. The acquisition notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was published in Government of India Gazette No.890 S.O.1564(E) dated 26.06.2008, and 3A(3) notice was also published in Tamil and English dailies on 20.08.2008. The 3D(1) notification was published in Central Gazette No.438/2009 S.O.675(E) dated 13.03.2009, and the 3G(3) enquiry was notified and published in Tamil and English dailies on 12.04.2009.
2.1. The 2nd respondent, after conducting field inspection on 20.07.2009 and classifying the lands as agricultural and Manai lands, collected 262 sales statistics for the reasonable period from 25.06.2007 to 26.06.2008. For agricultural lands, the data land in S.F.No.222/4 as per Document No.2216/2008 dated 18.06.2008 was selected — 0.40 acre sold at Rs.60,000/-, working out to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, Rs.3,70,500/- per Ha, and Rs.37/- per sq.mtr. For Manai lands, the data land Document No.2156/2008 dated 16.06.2008 pertaining to S.F.No.330/5 was relied upon — 1300 sq.ft. sold at Rs.1,04,000/-, working out to Rs.80/- per sq.ft. (Rs.860/- per sq.mtr.). The appellant's land in S.F.No.216/2B was classified as agricultural land and valued at Rs.37/- per sq.mtr. with 10% additional compensation. The Main Award of Rs.2,10,990/- with 10% additional totalling Rs.2,31,990/- and the Additional Award of Rs.15,670/- (385 sq.mtr. at Rs.37/- per sq.mtr. with 10% addition) were paid to the appellant in proceedings No.286/2009 dated 07.09.2009.
2.2. The appellant/land owner, dissatisfied with the said amount, filed an application before the 1st respondent/Arbitrator/District Collector on 01.12.2014 seeking enhanced compensation under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. He had also filed W.P.No.36933/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, and pursuant to the directions of that Court, the matter was considered and enquiry was conducted on 11.03.2016. The 1st respondent, after examining all documents and hearing both sides including the petitioner's counsel and NHAI, passed an Arbitration Award in Na.Ka.(Arbit) A2/2935/2015 dated 04.07.2016. The 1st respondent, considering that the appellant's land is adjacent to Chinnasalem Town and is a well-developed area, enhanced the compensation by 100% over the rate fixed by the 2nd respondent at Rs.37/- per sq.mtr., with 9% interest per annum from the date of notification under Section 3D(1) till the date of payment.
2.2. Aggrieved by the Arbitration Award dated 04.07.2016, the appellant/land owner filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Arb.O.P.No.97 of 2017 before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, praying to set aside the said award and to direct the respondents to pay compensation at Rs.80/- per sq.ft. (Rs.861/- per sq.mtr.) and further relief. The learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, dismissed the said ap
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NH Act awards; no re-appreciation of evidence or modification of compensation.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land awards; no re-appreciation of evidence or modification.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under S.34/37 Arbitration Act; courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or modify land compensation awards under NH Act.
Narrow scope under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act limits interference with NHAI arbitral awards to patent illegality, not re-appreciating evidence or enhancing compensation.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land awards; cannot re-appraise evidence or enhance compensation without perversity.
Courts under Sections 34/37 cannot re-appreciate evidence in NHAI arbitration awards; interference limited to perversity or public policy.
Limited judicial interference under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act in NHAI land compensation awards; no re-appreciation of evidence or merits.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act in NHAI land awards; no re-appreciation of evidence.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land compensation awards; no re-appreciation of evidence.
Narrow scope of judicial interference under Sections 34/37 Arbitration Act in NHAI land compensation; no re-appreciation of evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.