Madras High Court
P.Gnanasekaran vs Mr.Praveen P.Nair on 24 September, 2021
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
P.Gnanasekaran .. Petitioner
-vs-
Mr.Praveen P.Nair, I.A.S.
The District Collector-cum-
Land Acquisition Officer (Arbitrator)
Office of the District Collectorate
First Floor, Nagapattinam
Nagapattinam District 611 001 .. Respondent
Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
praying to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order of this
Court dated 17.09.2019 made in Contempt Petition No.1261 of 2019.
For Petitioner :: Mr.G.Thangavel
For Respondent :: Mr.T.Arunkumar
Government Advocate
ORDER
The petitioner for the second time has approached this Court with
this contempt petition alleging disobedience of the order passed by this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
Court.
2. The petitioner initially filed the Writ Petition No.31974 of 2017
with the following prayer:-
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the record of the impugned proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.13244/2012/001 dated 22.05.2017, passed by the
first respondent herein and quash the same as null and void
and against the basic principles of natural justice and
consequently direct the first respondent herein to work out the
due compensation payable to petitioner in respect of the
Survey Nos.226/10B2B and 226/23 ad-measuring 3300
sq.mtr., in Mettu Street, Athipuliur Village, Kilvellore Taluk,
Nagapattinam District of National Highways Road No.67,
with reference to the covered judgment of Hon'ble High Court,
Karnataka in W.P.Nos.42505, 42506 of 1999 c/w.
W.P.No.35755/2000 dated 11.10.2002 in Lalitha and
Another Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2003
Karnataka 165 also with reference to the proceeding of the
National Highways Authority of India dated 18.8.2015 by
strictly complying the mandatory provisions of circular dated
18.8.2015 issued by the National Highways Authority of
India.”
3. After hearing both parties, by order dated 22.2.2018, the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
petition was allowed observing as follows:-
“4. The petitioner's contention is that since there was a
direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated
11.07.2016 in Civil Appeal Nos.129 to 159 of 2014, to grant
compensation to the land owners under the repealed Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, the same parity may be shown to him,
as his property, the subject matter of the present case, is also
involved in the acquisition proceedings initiated by the
National Highways Authority. The learned counsel for the
petitioner reiterated that the present petitioner, since was
similarly if not identically placed with those petitioners in
Chakrapani case, he too would be entitled to the benefit based
on the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. There is no denying the fact that Sec.3J of the National
Highways Act, 1956 has been declared unconstitutional.
Necessarily, those who were denied benefit earlier would be
entitled to the benefit now.
6. This petition is therefore allowed with a direction to the
respondent concerned to grant the petitioner the benefits such
as solatium and the interest that were denied to the petitioner
contrary to the decision of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court holding that Sec.3J of the National Highways Act,
1956, as unconstitutional, within a period of twelve weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. ”
4. Complaining the non-compliance of the above order, the petitioner
along with others earlier filed the Contempt Petition Nos.1261 of 2019 etc.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
and this Court, by order dated 17.9.2019, passed the following common
order:-
“When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned
Government Advocate would submit that this Court by
judgment dated 01.04.2019 in W.A. No.2693 of 2018, while
allowing the writ appeal, permitted the writ petitioners therein
to raise all the issues in the pending application before the
District Collector, Salem, i.e. claim for additional market
value, solatium and interest. He would further submit that as
per Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, if the
amount determined by the competent authority under sub
section (1) or sub section (2) has not been acceptable, on
application by either of the parties, the amount shall be
determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central
Government.
2. A perusal of the above judgment would show that this issue
has to be necessarily adjudicated by the appropriate authority
namely, the District Collector while exercising his powers as
an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government for
dealing with the claim for enhanced compensation. It is
relevant to extract para 14 of the above judgment as under:
'This issue has to be necessarily adjudicated by
the appropriate authority namely the District
Collector while exercising his powers as an
Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government
for dealing with the claim for enhanced
compensation.'
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
3. Similarly, Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act,
1956 is extracted as under: '3-G(5) If the amount determined
by the competent authority under sub section (1) or sub
section (2) is not acceptable, either of the parties, the amount
shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined
by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
4. A reading of the above Section would show that if the
amount determined by the competent authority under sub
section (1) or sub section (2) is not acceptable, on application
made by either of the parties, the same shall be determined by
the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
5. In the light of the above, the petitioners are permitted to
move an application along with a copy of the Award and other
documents for determining the additional market value,
solatium and interest before the District Collector, who was
appointed by the Central Government as a Land Arbitrator.
The same shall be considered by the District
Collector/Arbitrator within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above
directions, the Contempt Petitions are disposed of. In view of
this order, the Sub Applications are closed.”
The petitioner has once again filed this contempt petition alleging non-
compliance of the above order.
5. Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
respondent, taking instructions from Mrs.R.Muthumeenakshi, Special
District Revenue Officer, NH(LA), NH 67 & NH45C Nagapattinam-
Tiruvarur-Thanjavur project, who is present in the Court, submitted that
since the award dated 10.4.2012 was passed enhancing the compensation at
the rate of 10% along with interest at the rate of 9%, thereafter, it is stated,
no more enhancement can be considered.
6. The said argument is unacceptable to this Court, in the light of the
ratio laid down by this Court in T.Chakrapani and others v. Union of India
represented by Secretary, National Highways Department and others, 2011
Writ L.R.193, holding as follows:-
“36. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed, while
upholding other provisions of the Act, Section 3-J of the
Highways Act is held to be unconstitutional, being hit by
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being in excess of
legislative competence. The petitioners, therefore, are held
entitled to the compensation of additional market value under
Section 23(1)(a), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest as
provided under the Land Acquisition Act.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
7. When the said order was taken on appeal before the Apex Court by
the National Highways Authority in Civil Appeal Nos.129 to 159 of 2014,
the Apex Court by its order dated 21.7.2016, while confirming the order
passed by this Court in T.Chakrapani's case holding that Section 3-J is
unconstitutional, directed that the respondents/writ petitioners be paid
solatium as due in terms of the impugned order(s) along with interest
thereon. Following the same, I have also passed an order in Writ Appeal
No.1555 of 2019 dated 7.9.2021 holding that the land owner(s) is/are to be
treated on par with those owners who fall within the ambit of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, and have become entitled to solatium and interest
payable under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the said Act.
8. In view of the above, this contempt petition is disposed of directing
the respondent to pay the solatium and interest under Sections 23(2) and
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act to the petitioner within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
24.09.2021
ss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Contempt Petition No.815 of 2021
T.RAJA, J.
ss
Cont.P.No.815 of 2021
24.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
