Madras High Court
National Highways Authority Of India vs M/S. P.Ramachandriah Son & Co on 9 August, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 14.06.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 09.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
And
A.Nos. 3621, 1478, 3783 and 1382 of 2023
Arb.O.P.No. 47 of 2023:
National Highways Authority of India
Rep. By its Deputy General Managet (T) & Project Director
“Sri Tower”, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP) Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. M/s. P.Ramachandriah Son & Co.,
Rep. By its Partner P.Arunkumar
S/o. Late P.Manohar
No.1/871, Plot No. 28
Venkateswara Nagar Main Road
Somu Nagar, Medavakkam
Chennai – 600 100.
2. The Arbitrator & District Collector
Collectorate, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
3. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways
Kancheepuram & Tiruvallur Districts,
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
Presently
The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways, Tiruvallur
No.3/4, Lal Bagadhur Sastri Street
Periyakuppam, Tiruvallur – 602 001. .. Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Rule 2.2 of Madras High
Court Arbitration Rules, 2020 praying to set aside the Award made by the
Arbitrator and District Collector, Chennai in Rc.No.
J17/15681/2011/Arbitration dated 21.11.2022.
***
For petitioner : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For 1st respondent : Mr.Shiva Kumar
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023:
M/s. P.Ramachandriah Son & Co.,
Rep. By its Partner P.Arunkumar
S/o. Late P.Manohar
No.1/871, Plot No. 28
Venkateswara Nagar Main Road
Somu Nagar, Medavakkam,
Chennai – 600 100. ...
Petitioner
Vs
1. National Highways Authority of India
Rep. By its Deputy General Managre (T) & Project Director
“Sri Tower”, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP) Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways
Kancheepuram & Tiruvallur Districts,
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
Presently
The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways, Tiruvallur.
3. The District Collector,
Chennai District,
32, Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor,
Singaravelar Maaligai
Chennai – 600 001. ..
Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
This Original Petition has been filed under Section34(2) and 2(A)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Award dated
21.11.2022 passed made by the Arbitrator and District Collector.
***
For petitioner : M/s. Shiva Kumar and Suresh
For 1st respondent : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
.
Arb.O.P.No. 13 of 2023:
National Highways Authority of India
Rep. By its Deputy General Managre (T) & Project Director
“Sri Tower”, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP) Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Arbitrator & District Collector
Collectorate, Chennai.
2. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways
NH-716B, 4 & 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
No.3/4, LalBagadhur Sastri Street
Periyakuppam (Near Thulasi Theatre)
Tiruvallur – 6 02 001.
3. P.Arunkumar
4. P.Ramachandirah Son & Co
No.1/871, Plot No. 28
Venkateswara Nagar Main Road
Somu Nagar, Medavakkam
Chennai - 600 100.
5. Rajyalakshmi
6. M.Harikumar
7. P.Rajesh Kumar .. Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award made
by the Arbitrator and District Collector, Chennai in Rc.No.
J17/15681/2011/Arbitration dated 21.11.2022.
***
For petitioner : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
For 3rd respondent : Mr.Shiva Kumar
Arb.O.P.No. 20 of 2023:
Mr.P.Arun Kumar ... Petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
1. National Highways Authority of India
Rep. by its Project Director
SRI Tower - 3rd Floor, DP-34
(SP) Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
2. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways
Kancheepuram & Tiruvallur Districts,
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
Presently
The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways, Tiruvallur
3. The District Collector
Chennai District,
32, Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor,
Singaravelar Maaligai
Chennai – 600 001. ..
Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) and (2A)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award
dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Arbitrator and District Collector.
***
For petitioner : M/s. Shiva Kumar and Suresh
For 1st respondent : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R.Siddharth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Government Advocate
Arb.O.P.No. 16 of 2023:
National Highways Authority of India
Rep. By its Deputy General Manager (T) & Project Director
“Sri Tower”, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP) Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Arbitrator & District Collector
Collectorate, Chennai.
2. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (LA)
National Highways, NH-716B, 4 & 5
No.3/4, LalBAgadhur Sastri Street
Periyakuppam (Near Thulasi Theatre)
Tiruvallur – 602 001.
3. S.Rajkumar .. Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award of the
Arbitrator and District Collector, Chennai in Rc.No.
J9/39250/2011/Arbitration dated 21.11.2022.
***
For petitioner : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
For 3rd respondent : Mr.Shiva Kumar
Arb.O.P.No. 28 of 2023:
Mr.R.Rajakumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. National Highways Authority of India
Rep. By its Project Director
SRI Tower - 3rd Floor, DP-34
(SP) Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
2. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways,
Kancheepuram & Tiruvallur Districts,
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
Presently
The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways, Tiruvallur
3. The District Collector & Arbitrator
Chennai District,
32, Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor,
Singaravelar Maaligai
Chennai – 600 001. ..
Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2A) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award dated
21.11.2022 passed by the Arbitrator and District Collector.
***
For petitioner : M/s. Shiva Kumar and Suresh
For 1st respondent : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
Arb.O.P.No. 61 of 2023:
National Highways Authority of India
Rep. By its Deputy General Managre (T) & Project Director
“Sri Tower”, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP) Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. B.Rajalakshmi
2. The Arbitrator & District Collector
Collectorate, Chennai.
3. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways
Kancheepuram & Tiruvallur Districts,
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
Presently
The Competent Authority and the Special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways, Tiruvallur
No.3/4, Lal Bagadhur Sastri Street
Periyakuppam, Tiruvallur – 602 001. .. Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Rule 2.2 of Madras High
Court Arbitration Rules, 2020 praying to set aside the Award made by the
Arbitrator and District Collector, Chennai in Rc.No.
J17/15681/2011/Arbitration dated 21.11.2022.
***
For petitioner : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For 1st respondent : Mr.Shiva Kumar
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
Arb.O.P.No. 21 of 2023:
Mrs.B.Rajyalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. National Highways Authority of India
Rep. by its Project Director
SRI Tower, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP) Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Kancheepuram & Tiruvallur Districts,
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
Presently
The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways, Tiruvallur.
3. The District Collector
Chennai District
32, Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor,
Singaravelar Maaligai
Chennai – 600 001. ..
Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) and (2A)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award
dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Arbitrator and District Collector.
***
For petitioner : M/s. Shiva Kumar and Suresh
For 1st respondent : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
Arb.O.P.No. 57 of 2023:
National Highways Authority of India
Rep. By its Deputy General Managre (T) & Project Director
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
“Sri Tower”, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP) Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. M.Harikumar
2. The Arbitrator & District Collector
Collectorate, Chennai.
3. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways
Kancheepuram & Tiruvallur Districts,
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
Presently
The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways, Tiruvallur
No.3/4, Lal Bagadhur Sastri Street
Periyakuppam, Tiruvallur – 602 001. .. Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Rule 2.2 of Madras High
Court Arbitration Rules, 2020 praying to set aside the Award made by the
Arbitrator and District Collector, Chennai in Rc.No.
J17/15681/2011/Arbitration dated 21.11.2022.
***
For petitioner : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For 1st respondent : Mr.Shiva Kumar
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Arb.O.P.No. 18 of 2023:
Mr.M.Hari Kumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. National Highways Authority of India
Rep. by its Project Director
SRI Tower, 3rd Floor, DP-34 (SP) Industrial Estate
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
2. The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways
Kancheepuram & Tiruvallur Districts,
Collectorate Campus
Kancheepuram – 631 501.
Presently
The Competent Authority and the Special
District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)
National Highways, Tiruvallur.
3. The District Collector
Chennai District
32, Rajaji Salai, 4th Floor,
Singaravelar Maaligai
Chennai – 600 001. ..
Respondents
This Original Petition has been filed under Section 34(2) and (2A)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award
dated 21.11.2022 passed by the Arbitrator and District Collector.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
For petitioner : M/s. Shiva Kumar and Suresh
For 1st respondent : Mr. Su.Srinivasan
Standing Counsel for NHAI
For RR 2 & 3 : Mr. R.Siddharth
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
Arb.O.P.Nos. 47 of 2023, 13 of 2023, 16 of 2023, 61 of 2023 and
57 of 2023 have been filed by the National Highways Authority of India
under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the
award passed by the Arbitrator and District Collector, Chennai, in Rc.No.
J17/15681/2011/Arbitration dated 21.11.2022.
2.Arb.O.P.Nos. 19 of 2023, 20 of 2023, 28 of 2023, 21 of 2023
and 18 of 2023 have been filed by the land owner under Section 34(2) and
(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seeking to set aside the
very same arbitral award dated 21.11.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
3.Since all the petitions questioned the award dated 21.11.2022 in
Rc.No. J17/15681/2011/Arbitration passed by the District Collector,
Chennai, a common order is passed.
4.A preliminary notification under Section 3 A(1) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 was approved by the Ministry of Shipping and Road
Transport, New Delhi and published in Gazettee of India dated 12.08.2005
and notification under Section 3-D(1) was published in the Gazette of India
on 18.11.2005 seeking to acquire lands measuring 4302.9 sq.mts in
Koyambedu for the purpose of construction of Great Separator at
Koyambedu junction.
5.Since common grounds have been raised in the Petitions, let me
take as illustrative the facts and arguments advanced in Arb.O.P.No.19 of
2023 and Arb.O.P.No.47 of 2023.
6.The lands of the petitioner in Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023 were also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
part of the lands so acquired. Originally, on 08.12.2006, the Competent
Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition, National
Highways, Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur District had passed an order
determining Rs.1925/- sq.ft., for the acquired land. This order was challenged
under Section 3(G)(5) seeking enhancement of compensation. An Award was
passed by the Arbitrator in District Collector, Chennai, on 27.04.2018,
whereby the compensation was enhanced from Rs.1925/- per sq.ft., to
Rs.4103/- per sq.ft.
7.Questioning this award, the claimant and the National Highways
Authority of India filed Petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court.
8.The said Original Petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge
of this Court along with batch of similar Original Petitions and by a common
order dated 04.07.2019, the award dated 27.04.2018 was set aside and the
matter was remanded back to the District Collector, Chennai / Sole Arbitrator
to decide the issue afresh. Consequent to such direction, an amended claim
petition has been filed by the petitioners and counters were also filed. Finally,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
the District Collector, Chennai / Sole Arbitrator, again passed a common
award on 21.11.2022, reiterating the same award. This award is now under
question and challenge before this Court.
9.In the grounds in Arb.O.P.No. 47 of 2023, the petitioner National
Highways Authority of India had stated that the arbitrator had not given any
reason for enhancing the compensation from Rs.1925/- per sq.ft., to
Rs.4103/- per sq.ft. It was contended that the documents relied on by the
claimant namely, the sale deed dated 28.03.2005 registered as Document No.
1181 of 2005 was with respect to purchase of commercial land by M/s.
Chennai Foods. The lands measured 5508 sq.ft., and along with
superstructure, the total consideration was determined at Rs.2,29,00,000/-
which would indicate that the value per land per sq.ft., was Rs.4,103/-. It is
also contended that the property was situated at Thirumangalam which is
totally different area in comparison with the area where the lands have been
acquired. That particular transaction was for commercial purposes while the
land which had been acquired consisted of residential houses. It is therefore
contended that the said document should not have been taken into
consideration for determining the land value.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
10.The primary ground urged in Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023 was that
the District Collector/Sole Arbitrator had failed to taken into consideration the
other documents filed, namely, the sale deed dated 16.03.2005 registered in
the Sub Registrar Office at Anna Nagar as Document No. 985 of 2005 in
which the value per sq.ft., was at Rs.8,739/-. It was also contended that the
petitioner was entitled to compensation of additional market value under
Section 23 (1)(A), the solatium under Section 23(2) and interest at Section 28
as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since Section 3J of the
National Highways Act had been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the Judgment reported in AIR 2019 SC 4689 [Union of India and
Another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others].
11.Heard argumens advanced by Mr. Su.Srinivasan, learned
Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority for the petitioner in
Arb.O.P.No. 47 of 2023 and Mr.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023.
12.It is the contention of Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Counsel for the National Highways Authorities of India that the learned
Arbitrator had erred in not taking into consideration the objections raised for
accepting Document No. 1185 of 2005, sale deed dated 28.03.2005. It is
contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the document related to a
commercial transaction with respect to a property which was beyond 1.6 kms
raidus and therefore should have been rejected by the Arbitrator. With respect
to the grant of 12% p.a., additional to the market value of the land, the
learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the Judgment in Tarsem Singh
case, AIR 2019 SC 4689, had been further modified by Judgment of the
Hon'ble Spureme Court dated 30.07.2021 in Miscellaneous Application (D)
No. 2572 of 2020 and relying under Section 23(1)(A) of the Land
Acquisition Act 1984 had been denied. It had, therefore, been contended that
the relief under the above provision should not have been granted.
13.Mr.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in
Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023 however contended that the sole arbitrator had
correctly taken into consideration Document No. 1181, the sale deed dated
28.03.2005 and pointed out that the property in that particular sale deed was
less then 1.6 kms raidus as the crow flies. It had been contended by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
learned counsel that only after due examination of the records had the
document been taken into consideration even at the initial stage. The learned
counsel stated that the petitioner in Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023 is entitled for
solatiaum under Section 23(2) and for interest under Section 28 as provided
under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The learned counsel stated that the
award requires revision since no acceptable reasons had been given for not
taking into consideration the alternate sale deed dated 16.03.2005 in
Document No. 985 of 2005 wherein the land value had been given as more
than Rs.9000/- per sq.ft. It was contended that this Court should set aside
the award.
14.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused
the materials available on records.
15.This Court had reduced the pleadings only in two arbitration
petitions, namely, the Arb.O.P.No. 47 of 2023 and filed by the National
Highways Authorities of India wherein the first respondent was
P.Ramachandriah Son and Co., and Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023 wherein
P.Ramachandriah Son and Co., was the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
16.The main grounds raised by the National Highways Authority of
India is that the sole arbitrator was not correct in taking into consideration
Document No. 1181 of 2005, sale deed dated 28.03.2005, on the ground that
the property involved was more than 1.6 kms radius away from the property
which had been acquired and that the said property had also been conveyed
for commercial purposes, whereas the land acquired were residential in
nature.
17.On the side of the claimant/petitioner in Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023
the main argument put forward was denial of the relief of solatium under
Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 as provided under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894.
18.The above are the common issues which arise in all the
Arbitration Petitions. Therefore, one common order is passed in all the
Arbitration Petitions as they relate to acquisition of land under the same
notification and for the same object.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
19.Let me straight away answer the claim of the petitioner in
Arb.O.P.No. 19 of 2023 wherein a grievance had been raised that the
petitioner had not been granted compensation of additional market value
under Section 23(1)(A) and Solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under
Section 28 as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
20.The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard
provides a guideline to answer the said issue. The Judgment is reported in
AIR 2019 SC 4689 [Union of India and Another Vs. Tarsem Singh and
others. By that Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had struck down
Section 3J of the National Highways Act which would automatically mean
that the claimants were entitled to compensation of additional market value
under Section 23(1)(A) and solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under
Section 28 as provided under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. But
subsequently, that particular Judgment had been modified in Miscellaneous
Application (D).No. 2572 of 2020 and in order dated 30.07.2021, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had deleted the relief granted under Section 23(1)(A)
of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. In implication of the Judgment dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
19.09.2019, reported in AIR 2019 SC 4689 would mean that all the
claimants in the all the aforementioned petitions, namely, in Arb.O.P.Nos. 19
of 2023, 20 of 2023, 28 of 2023, 21 of 2023 and 18 of 2023 are entitled for
solatium under Section 23(2) and for interest under Section 28 as provided
under the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
21.The next point to be addressed is the reliance placed on
Document No.1181 dated 28.03.2005. It must be kept in mind that
originally, an order had been passed by the competent authority dated
08.12.2006 fixing the compensation at Rs.1925 per sq.ft. The claimants have
filed an application seeking enhancement of the compensation. This came
up for consideration before the sole arbitrator / District Collector, Chennai,
who passed an award dated 27.04.2018 enhancing the compensation from
Rs.1925/- per sq.ft, to Rs.4103/- per sq.ft. That award was challenged before
this Court in a batch of petitions and a learned Single Judge by common
Judgment dated 04.07.2019 had set aside the award and had remanded the
matter back to decide the issue afresh with a direction that the market value
should be fixed in accordance with Section 3(G)(7) of the National Highways
Act 1956. It was also directed that the sole Arbitrator/District Collector shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
decide the issue of solatium and interest in accordance with law. It was also
directed that notice shall be issued to both sides and opportunity must be
given.
22.It had been contended by Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned standing
counsel that no reasons had been given in the award as to why Document No.
1181 of 2005 had been considered which is now the subject matter of
challenge.
23.Even though the award dated 27.04.2018 had been set aside by
the learned Single Judge, one observation in that award, namely, that the
Land Acquisition Officer had also stated that the lands under acquisition are
in well developed urbanised area and structures involved in acquisition are
shops, business outlets, marriage halls etc., is a statement of fact and is of
much significance. This is very significant since it had been contended by
Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned standing counsel that the transaction involved in
document No. 1181 of 2005 dated 25.04.2018 is a commercial transaction
and therefore that document could not be the basis of determining the market
value. But as a fact the Land Acquisition Officer had himself stated that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
lands acquired are well developed urbanised area and the structures are not
just houses or the residential buildings but actually shops, business, outlets,
marriage halls, etc. This would indicate that any sale made of those structures
must also be termed as a commercial transaction. Therefore, I hold that this
distinction with Document No 1181 of 2005 cannot be sustained.
24.The other objection raised by Mr. Su.Srinivasan is that the
property which was the subject matter of Document No. 1181 of 2005 is
beyond 1.6 kms radius and therefore, it should have been rejected. However,
in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is evident that the challenge by
the National Highways Authority of India was on the ground that opportunity
was not given as is seen from paragraph No. 4 of the order. The learned
single Judge had therefore remanded the mater back and had directed that
sufficient opportunity must given. After the matter had been remanded back,
a perusal of the records show that an amended claim petition had been filed
and a counter affidavit had been filed by the competent authority and Special
District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition, National Highways,
Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur Districts and a counter affidavit had also been
filed by the first respondent National Highways Authorities of India. A reply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
affidavit had also been filed by the claimant. Thus, opportunity had been
granted. After considering all these materials, the sole Arbitrator had still
taken a decision to take that document into consideration. This Court cannot
sit as an appellate authority over that decision taken. There cannot be
modification of the award. The document had been considered twice over.
Remanding the matter back would only prolong the litigation particularly, as
determining the value of the lands acquired in the year 2005 would be an
effort which may not yield fruit. Over passage of time, urbanisation has
spread over the lands acquired and extended for beyond. I would, therefore,
in the absence of any viable alternate, not interfere with that decision of the
sole Arbitrator.
25.It is then contended by Mr.Su.Srinivasan that no reasons have
been given in the award and when no reasons are given, the award should be
set aside. The relevant portion of the award shows that the learned Arbitrator
had reduced the points which are required to be determined, namely, (a)
Verification of sale deed in Document No.985 of 2005 dated 16.03.2005, (b)
the additional market value of 10% in the amended claim based on second
development regulation plan issued by CMDA, (c) the implication of Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
3(G)(7) of the National Highways Act 1956, (d) the provision of Section 3H
of National Highways Act 1956 relating to grant of 9% interest to the
enhanced land value, (e) the modification petition filed by National Highways
Authority of India in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh and
Others, referred supra and (f) applicability of solatium and interest in the
absence of specific provisions under the National Highways Act, 1956.
Thereafter in the award, the learned arbitrator had stated that he had
considered all the aforementioned factors and had ordered that the
compensation for the land should be enhanced from Rs.1925/- per sq.ft., to
Rs.4103/- per sq.ft. Thus document was already available in the records and
had been the basis of the earlier award dated 27.04.2018 enhancing the
compensation from Rs.1925/- per sq.ft., to Rs.4103/- sq.ft. The learned
Single Judge while remanding the matter back had taken into consideration
the arguments put forward on behalf of the National Highways Authorities of
India Act that due opportunity had not been given. In the present petition
such a ground had not been taken.
26.The learned arbitrator had come to a definite finding upholding
the earlier award. The choice of the words may not be satisfactory. It could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
be that the award does not contain the reasons which the National Highways
Authorities of India expect to be given. But the very fact that there has been
reference in detail to all the relevant records, namely, the amended claim
petition, the objections filed and the rejoinder filed only show that the learned
arbitrator had an occasion to atleast peruse the records.
27.The scope under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act is extremely narrow. The Court cannot modify or thrust its own views for
the view of the arbitrator. The Court will have to be determine whether the
procedure required by law is followed. It had been found that it was not
followed in the earlier round of litigation and therefore, the matter had been
remanded back to the sole arbitrator. There is no grievance expressed that
opportunity was not given. However, a grievance is expressed that the
document which had been taken into consideration to determine the market
value of the land should not have been taken into consideration. But, the fact
is that the lands which had been acquired consisted of shops, marriage halls
and commercial establishments. This had been stated by the Land
Acquisition Officer in the earlier round which is also part of the records as is
evident from the award dated 27.04.2018 which though has been set aside, a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
statement of fact can still be taken into consideration. Therefore, I hold that
even if the award is not happily worded still, the learned Arbitrator has held
out an impression that he had perused all the records before coming to the
conclusion. The fact whether that particular property is within 1.6 kms in
radius had not been determined directly as a point in issue by the learned
Arbitrator. That is determination of a fact and the Court cannot sit over a
decision on fact at this stage of the proceedings. Both the parties have not
taken recourse to file an application under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996. They are both aware of such provision.
28.It is imperative that an application in writing is filed to
determine a fact by the Arbitrator and render a finding on that fact to this
Court. This Court cannot sit as an appellate Court. It cannot mould the
award nor modify the award. The records also reveal that the claimants have
been running from pillar to post right from the year 2005 when the lands
have been acquired. Remanding the matter back to the arbitrator would only
cause more hardship to both the parties, particularly to the claimants.
29.Taking all these facts, though it is to be stated that the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
Arbitrator could have worded the reasons in a better way, I would uphold the
award and also grant solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section
28 as provided under the Land Acquisition Act 1894.
30.In the result,
(1) Arbitration Original Petitions filed by the National Highways
Authorities of India, namely, Arb.O.P.Nos. 47 of 2023, 13 of 2023, 16 of
2023, 61 of 2023 and 57 of 2023 are dismissed;
(2) Arbitration Original Petitions filed by the Claimants in
Arb.O.P.Nos. 19 of 2023, 20 of 2023, 28 of 2023, 21 of 2023 and 18 of
2023 are partly allowed with respect to the relief granted under Section 23(2)
and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and dismissed with respect
to other reliefs;
(3) Consequently, connected applications are closed; and
(4) No order as to costs.
09.08.2024
vsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20, 16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
Pre Delivery Order made in
Arb.O.P. Nos. 47, 19, 13, 20,
16, 28, 61, 21, 57 & 18 of 2023
And
A.Nos. 3621, 1478, 3783 and 1382 of 2023
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
