Sasikala vs The Sole Arbitrator Cum The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4949 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4949 Mad
Judgement Date : 25 February, 2021

Madras High Court

Sasikala vs The Sole Arbitrator Cum The ... on 25 February, 2021

                                                                                  W.P.No.2647 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.2647 of 2021

                Sasikala                                                       ..... 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.                                         ..... Respondent
                  [R2 – suo motu impleaded Vide Order dated 25.02.2021
                          in W.P.No.2647 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

                1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                    W.P.No.2647 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. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the Competent

Authority under the National Highways Act, vide proceedings dated

07.07.2005, the petitioner herein has preferred a Claim petition dated 23-12-

2006 before the statutory arbitrator. 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 her claim petition pending before him for close

to 15 years.

2. Mr.D.Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader enters appearance for the

first respondent. The Project Director, NHAI, Krishnagiri is suo-motu

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2647 of 2021

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

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.2647 of 2021

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.