Madras High Court
The Project Director vs M.Rajendran on 5 January, 2024
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.A.No.3004 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.3004 of 2023
The Project Director
National Highways Authority of India
Project implementation Unit – Chennai
“Sri Tower”, 3rd Floor, DP – 34(SP)
Industrial Estate, Guindy
Chennai – 600 032. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. M.Rajendran
2. The Arbitrator & District Collector
Thiruvallur District.
3. The Special District Revenue Officer (LA)
NH 205, No.3&4, Lal Bagadhur Sasthiri St
Periyakuppam Railway Street
(Near) Thulasi Theatre
Thiruvallur – 602 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 15.11.2022 in W.P.No.30330 of 2022.
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.3004 of 2023
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasan
For the Respondents : Mr.M.P.Saravanan
for Respondent-1
Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan
Additional Government Pleader
for Respondents 2 & 3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The present private respondent/original writ petitioner has filed
a writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking a direction
against the third respondent therein/present appellant to pay the
enhanced compensation amount as per the award passed by the
Collector under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and
disburse the same. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition by passing the following order:
“9. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and the limited relief sought for by the
petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the case, directs the first respondent to pay the
enhanced compensation amount as per the
proceedings dated 31.08.2020, if there is no legal
impediments, within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
2.1. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contented
that none of the contentions raised by the present appellant was
considered by the Arbitrator while passing the award. The issue of
limitation was subsequently raised and the same has not been
addressed by the Arbitrator. Other factual aspects were also raised,
however, without considering the grounds raised by the present
appellant the award has been passed, thereby awarding the
exorbitant compensation amount.
2.2. The appellant has filed an application under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter
referred to as, 'the Act of 1996') challenging the said award, but, due
to the fact that the officer in-charge to register got changed twice,
the application was not registered.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.3. Learned counsel further submits that in fact, the writ
petition ought not to have been entertained; the writ petition is not
maintainable. The original petitioner had the liberty to file execution.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge came
to the conclusion that the writ petition is not maintainable, where
there is a specific alternate remedy available under Section 36 of the
Act of 1996 for execution, however, still directed the appellant to pay
the enhanced compensation amount, if there is no legal impediment,
within a period of six weeks. Learned Single Judge has not decided
on the merits of the contentions of the present appellant. The
condition imposed to pay the amount is an onerous one.
3.1. Learned counsel for the private respondent/original writ
petitioner submits that the writ petition to claim payment of the
enhanced amount as per the award is maintainable. Reliance is
placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated
24.07.2018 in W.P.No.1230 of 2018. It is submitted that in respect of
the property acquired for the same project earlier, award is passed in
the year 2017 and the rate of compensation award therein is only
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
awarded to the original petitioners in these matters.
3.2. It is further submitted that it is the bounden duty of the
Authorities to deposit the amount as per the award. The appellant has
paid the enhanced amount of compensation, as per the arbitral
award, in respect of some claimants, but is selectively depriving of
the enhanced amount to the original petitioner.
4. We have considered the submissions advised by learned
counsel for the parties.
5. No doubt, the original petitioner has a remedy of execution
under Section 36 of the Act of 1996.
6. Be that as it may, according to the present appellant, the
challenge to the arbitral award is pending consideration before the
concerned District Judge. In view of that, it would not be proper for
us to comment upon the merits of the arbitral award. In light thereof,
we have not considered the contentions of the respective parties
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon the merits of the arbitral award.
7. The deposit of amount would also be to the advantage of the
present appellant, inasmuch as with regard to the amount deposited,
the further interest would be arrested.
8. We may appreciate the anxiety of the original petitioner to
receive the enhanced compensation amount and at the same time,
the grounds raised by the present appellant also will have to be
considered by the Court, dealing with the application under Section
34 of the Act of 1996. The equities will have to be adjusted.
9. Learned Single Judge had also passed further orders, which
in our opinion would be required to be modified. In the light of that,
we pass the following orders:
(i) 50% of the enhanced compensation
amount shall be deposited by the present appellant
with the concerned Court within a period of ten
weeks from today (i.e., 05.01.2024);
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) The original petitioner is at liberty to apply
for the withdrawal of the amount, which application
shall be considered by the concerned District Judge,
on its own merits and after hearing all parties
concerned, and appropriate orders shall be passed;
(iii) The present appellant may also seek
further orders on the stay petition before the
learned District Judge;
(iv) Depending upon the order that may be
passed by the learned District Judge on the
application of the original petitioner for withdrawal
of the amount, further steps may be taken with
regard to the amount, if lying in the Court, such as
to invest the same in a Nationalised Bank or
otherwise.
(v) Considering the huge amount involved, the
learned District Judge, with whom the application
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is pending, may
endeavour to decide the application under Section
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34 of the Act of 1996 expeditiously.
10. With these observations and directions, the writ appeal
stand disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.No.24867 of 2023 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
05.01.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
To
1. The Arbitrator & District Collector
Thiruvallur District.
2. The Special District Revenue Officer (LA)
NH 205, No.3&4, Lal Bagadhur Sasthiri St
Periyakuppam Railway Street
(Near) Thulasi Theatre
Thiruvallur – 602 001.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
(kpl)
05.01.2024
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
