Madras High Court
B.Noorullah vs The Sole Arbitrator Cum The ... on 25 February, 2021
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on : 23.03.2021
Judgment Pronounced on :07.10.2021
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
B.Noorullah ..... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Sole Arbitrator cum the District Collector
(National Highways-4 & 46 Land Acquisition)
Vellore District
Sathuvachary
Vellore – 632 009.
2.The Project Director
NHAI
Krishnagiri. ..... Respondents
[R2 suo motu impleaded Vide Order dated 25.02.2021
made in W.P.No.2613 of 2021]
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent herein to dispose
the petitioners' enhancement claim application filed on 23.12.2006 with the
respondent herein following the procedures as laid down in the National
Highways Act, 1956 including affording an opportunity of personal hearing to
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
the petitioner to resolve the dispute relating to the compensation in respect of
acquisition for making NH 4 & 46 (Chennai – Bangalore Highways) to a four
land and pass suitable orders within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saibaba
For Respondents : Mr.D.Raja
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Mr.Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for R2
ORDER
1. The case of the petitioner is that his mother is the owner of the property
comprised in Old Survey No.120/21B, New Survey No.120/21B-2 having an
extent of 65 sq.mt. in Minnur village, and that was acquired by the
Government. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the
Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, vide proceedings dated
07.07.2005, the petitioner's mother preferred a Claim petition dated 23-12-2006
before the statutory arbitrator. Pending disposal of the claim petition, her
mother had passed away on 23.11.2018. Alleging that the statutory arbitrator
has kept the matter in cold storage, the petitioner now seeks a direction to the
statutory arbitrator to dispose of the claim petition pending before him for close
to 15 years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
2. Mr.D.Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader enters appearance for the
first respondent. The Project Director, NHAI, Krishnagiri is suo-moto
impleaded in this case as second respondent, and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned
Standing Counsel takes notice for NHAI. No counter in this case has been
filed. Heard both sides.
3. During the pendency of this proceedings, this Court was informed that the
arbitrator had completed his proceedings as early as on 06.01.2015, that it was
left uncommunicated to the petitioner for the last about 6 years. This truly is an
information that will lighten up any mind that ponders over, or wonders on the
administrative efficiency.
4. However, this Court chose not to dispose of the matter, as solatium and
interest were not awarded, and hence it tagged this petition along with another
batch of cases in W.P.No.697 of 2021, where the issue concerning the
obligation of the NHAI to pay solatium and interest in all cases where the
statutory arbitrator had disposed of the arbitral proceedings before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh v Union of India
[(2019) 9 SCC 304] was under challenge. And, this Court is aware that the
payment of solatium and interest is not pointedly involved in this case.
5. On 04-10-2021, this Court allowed W.P.No.697 of 2021 & batch of cases,
and has held that all the land owners whose claim have been disposed of by the
Statutory Arbitrator, before the judgement in the Tarsem Singh case , will have
to be paid the solatium and interest. The summary of the judgement in W.P.697
of 2021 & batch of cases is:
➢ The effect of the Tarse m Singh case ratio is not prospective and that it
applies to all the cases that are pending and disposed of by the CALA or
the statutory arbitrator.
➢ Solatium and interest are part of compensation, that compensation is part
of Article 300 A of the Constitution, that Art.300 A in turn is readable in
Article 21, and hence the right to be paid solatium and interest cannot be
waived.
➢ That the NHAI may have to pay solatium and interest even without a
demand, as it is its statutory obligation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
➢ That inasmuch as solatium and interest is part of Article 21, limitation as
a defence is not available to the NHAI.
The Order in W.P.697 of 2021 & batch of cases is required to be read as part of
this Order.
6. Since the statutory arbitrator has disposed of the claim of the petitioner,
nothing survives for consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the
Competent Authority, or the Project Director, for payment of solatium and
interest in accordance with the dictum in Tarsem Singh v Union of India
[(2019)9 SCC 304].
7. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
07.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
ds
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
To:
1.The Sole Arbitrator cum the District Collector
(National Highways-4 & 46 Land Acquisition)
Vellore District
Sathuvachary
Vellore – 632 009.
2.The Project Director
NHAI
Krishnagiri.
Pre-delivery order in
W.P.No.2613 of 2021
07.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
