Madras High Court
S.P. Anthonisamy vs Government Of India on 18 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Nos.30373 and 30376 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.30367 & 30368 of 2019
S.P. Anthonisamy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Government of India
Ministry of Road Transports and Highways,
Transport Bhawan,
No.1, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
2. District Collector/Arbitrator,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Competent Authority & District
Revenue Officer,
(Land Acquisition), National Highways,
No.64, Seetharaman Nagar,
3rd Cross Street, Pudupalayam,
Cuddalore.
4. The General Manager (Tech and Project Director),
National Highways Authority of India,
Villupuram, Project implementation Unit, 28,
V.G.P. Nagar West, Vazhudha Reddy Post,
Villupuram-605 401.
(R4 is impleaded vide order
dated 05.03.2020 made
in W.M.P.No.6224/2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
in W.P.No.30373/2019
and
order dated 18.08.2021 made
in W.M.P.No.6226/2020
in W.P.No.30376/2019) .. Respondent
Prayer in W.P.No.30373 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.L.3(Arbit)/21024/2018, dated 27.07.2019 in respect of the
petitioner's property at Survey No.33/8B and 33/9A2 admeasuring
totally 1,710 sq.mt. at Lalpuram and to quash the same and to further
direct the 2nd respondent to follow in letter and spirit, the
comprehensive guidelines issued by the 1st respondent, dated
28.12.2017 in NH-11011/30/2015-LA whilst granting compensation to
the petitioner.
Prayer in W.P.No.30376 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.L.3(Arbit)/21024/2018, dated 27.07.2019 in respect of the
petitioner's property at Survey No.39/6B and 40/1B admeasuring
totally 5,315 sq.mt. at Melasokkanathan Pettai and to quash the same
and to further direct the 2nd respondent to follow in letter and spirit,
the comprehensive guidelines issued by the 1st respondent, dated
28.12.2017 in NH-11011/30/2015-LA whilst granting compensation to
the petitioner.
For Petitioner .. Mr. B. Ravi Raja
For R1 .. Mr. T.V. Krishnamachari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
For R2 and R3 .. Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The writ petitions have been filed in the nature of writ of
certiorarified mandamus seeking to call for the records of the second
respondent/District Collector and to interfere with the same.
2. It is the contention of the writ petitioner herein in both the
writ petitions that he owned lands in Survey No.33/8B and 33/9A2
admeasuring totally 1,710 sq.mt. at Lalpuram and in Survey No.39/6B
and 40/1B admeasuring totally 5,315 sq.mt. at Melasokkanathan
Pettai.
3. These lands were acquired for the purpose of National
Highways. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that
compensation paid was much much lesser than what amount should
have been paid if the matter has been properly adjudicated by the
second respondent herein. It is stated that the second respondent, as
arbitrator, has got authority to re-examine the award passed, but, he
only followed the award without proper application of mind and
therefore, the writ petitions had been filed instead of filing Application
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, before the
District Court concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner justified invoking Article
226 of the Constitution of India by stating that there has been non
application of mind by the second respondent which necessitated him
to come before this court seeking interference of the impugned order.
5. It is admitted that as against the impugned order, the
petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. With regard to the issue of limitation period, it is three months
for preferring Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act and the delay can be condoned for a further period of
30 days. The writ petitions had been filed on 18.10.2019. The
impugned order has been passed on 27.7.2019.
7. Mr.Raviraja, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
there is a provision of limitation under Section 34 of the Limitation Act
but, with regard to the delay in filing Application under Section 34 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it may be waived in view of Section
14 of the Limitation Act and a direction may be given to the District
Judge concerned to take a decision waiving the the delay.
8. I would leave it to the entire discretion of the learned District
Judge to examine the reasons given and to examine whether Section
14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable or not. I am not entering
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
into any discussion on that aspect.
9. Mr.Raviraja, learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed
out a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in
A.Venkatachalapathy v. Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Madras 2329, wherein the
learned Single Judge had directly interfered with the order of the
Collector stating that the said order has been passed in a very casual
and cavalier fashion. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the present impugned order is also passed in such a
manner.
10. However, it would only be advisable that the petitioner
approaches the proper authority under Section 34 of the Act as no two
orders can be placed on the same footing. Each order has to be
examined on its own merits. I am conscious that I have not entered
into the merits of the Award passed and I would relegate the
impugned order to be examined as to whether proper compensation
had been granted or not to be adjudicated before the proper forum
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act viz., before the competent
court.
11. I would therefore relegate the parties back to the District
Court giving liberty to seek for waiving of limitation period in view of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Section 14 of the Limitation Act which Application will have to be
decided on its merits by the learned District Judge concerned. With the
said observation, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. The
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
18.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ssk
To
1. Government of India
Ministry of Road Transports and Highways,
Transport Bhawan,
No.1, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
2. District Collector/Arbitrator,
Cuddalore,
Cuddalore District.
3. The Competent Authority & District
Revenue Officer,
(Land Acquisition), National Highways,
No.64, Seetharaman Nagar,
3rd Cross Street, Pudupalayam,
Cuddalore.
4. The General Manager (Tech and Project Director),
National Highways Authority of India,
Villupuram, Project implementation Unit, 28,
V.G.P. Nagar West, Vazhudha Reddy Post,
Villupuram-605 401.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J
ssk.
W.P.Nos.30373 and 30376/2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.30367 & 30368/2019
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
