Madras High Court
Annamalai vs / on 17 August, 2020
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.No. 10516 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.10516 of 2020
and
WMP No.12772 of 2020
1. Annamalai
2. Vanangamudi
3. Baskaran
4. Devendran
5. Dhamodharan
6. Dhanalakshmi
7. Gunasekaran
8. Mani
9. Manokaran
10. Manonmani
11. Nagarathinam
12. Selvaraj
13. Selvarasu
14. Ramalingam
15. Sakunthala
16. Sebasthiammal
17. Sivasundari
18. Dhanapathy
19. Thiruvathurai ...Petitioners
Vs.
1/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No. 10516 of 2020
1. The District Collector/Arbitrator
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer NH 45-C
District Revenue Officer
Collectorate, Villupuram.
3. The Project Director
National Highways – 45-C,
Natarajapuram Colony,
Medical College Road,
Tanjore. ...Respondents
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the
first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.L3 (Arbit)/20257/2018,
dated 06.03.2020 and quash the same insofar as relates to the
petitioners concerned and consequently directing the respondents
to fix the higher compensation insofar relates to the first
petitioner's punja plot (land) was acquired in S.No.148/3 to the
extent of 210 sq.meter and the second petitioner's punja plot was
acquired in S.No.136/8 to the extent of 290 sq.meter and house site
was acquired in S.No.138/8B to the extent of 262 sq.meter and the
third petitioner's punja land was acquired in S.No.148/1B1 to the
2/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No. 10516 of 2020
extent of 454 sq.meter and the fourth petitioner's nanja plot was
acquired in S.No.146/5 to the extent of 40 sq.meter, nanja land was
acquired in S.No.147/1C to the extent of 214 sq.meter, nanja land
was acquired in S.No.147/2A1 to the extent of 1/3 of 40 sq.meter,
nanja land was acquired in S.No.147/1A to the extent of 1/3 of 50
sq.meter and the fifth petitioner's punja plot was acquired in
S.No.148/1B3 to the extent of 170 sq.meter and punja plot was
acquired in S.No.148/2A to the extent of 100 sq.meter and the sixth
petitioner's punja plot was acquired in S.No.138/1P to the extent of
14 sq.meter and punja plot was acquired in S.No. 138/1Q to the
extent of 40 sq.meter and the seventh petitioner's nanja plot was
acquired in S.No.142/3 to the extent of 165 sq.meter and the
eighth petitioner's nanja plot was acquired in S.No.142/3A to the
extent of 73 sq.meter and nanja plot was acquired in S.No.142/6A
to the extent of 127 sq.meter amd nanja land was acquired in S.No.
146/1A1 to the extent of 470 sq.meter and the ninth petitioner's
punja plot was acquired in S.No.138/1M to the extent of 10
sq.meter and the tenth petitioner's punja land was acquired in
S.No.148/1B1 to the extent of 326 sq.meter and the eleventh
petitioner's nanja land was acquired in S.No.147/2B to the extent of
330 sq.meter and the twelfth petitioner's nanja land was acquired
in S.No.143/1C to the extent of 710 sq.meter and the thirteenth
3/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No. 10516 of 2020
petitioner's nanja plot was acquired in S.No.142/3 to the extent of
82 sq.meter and the nanja plot was acquired in S.No. 142/2B1 to
the extent of 100 sq.meter and the nanja land was acquired in
S.No.146/1A1 to the extent of 470 sq.meter and the fourteenth
petitioner's nanja plot was acquired in S.No.146/5 to the extent of
40 sq.meter and the nanja land was acquired in S.No.147/1A to the
extent of 1/3 of 50 sq.meter and the nanja land was acquired in
S.No.147/1B to the extent of 90 sq.meter and the nanja land was
acquired in S.No.147/2A1 to the extent of 1/3 of 40 sq.meter and
the nanja land was acquired in S.No.147/2A2 to the extent of 320
sq.meter and the fifteenth petitioner's nanja plot was acquired in
S.No.142/6 to the extent of 213 sq.meter and the nanja land was
acquired in S.No.146/2 to the extent of 710 sq.meter and the
nanja land was acquired in S.No.146/3 to the extent of 320
sq.meter and the nanja plot was acquired in S.No.146/5 to the
extent of 40 sq.meter and the sixteenth petitioner's nanja land was
acquired in S.No.143/1A to the extent of 180 sq.meter and the
seventeenth petitioner's punja land was acquired in S.No.148/2B to
the extent of 230 sq.meter and the eighteenth petitioner's nanja
land was acquired in S.No.136/11D to the extent of 110 sq.meter
(18th petitioner's husband Subramanian already expired) and the 19th
petitioner's nanja plot was acquired in S.No.146/5 to the extent of
4/11
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.No. 10516 of 2020
40 sq.meter and the nanja land was acquired in S.No.147/1C to the
extent of 56 sq.meter and the nanja land was acquired in
S.No.147/2A1 to the extent of 440 sq.meter and the nanja land was
acquired in S.No.147/1A to the extent of 1/3 of 50 sq.meter, by
taking note of the sale deed in Document No.1485 of 2012, dated
20.09.2012 by invoking under Section 26(1)(a) of RFCTLARR Act and
determine the compensation together with 100% solatium,
multiplier factor into 2 with 12% interest along with benefits under
the Provisions of U/s.31,38 and 105(3) of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement of RECTLARR Act (Act 30 of 2013).
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.E.Manoharan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent-3 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
******
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the first respondent in exercise of the power under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 5/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No. 10516 of 2020
2. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the first respondent did not take into consideration various aspects and documents while fixing compensation and the petitioners are continuing to be in possession and hence, this Writ Petition is filed before this Court.
3. Per contra, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable since the award passed by the first respondent will have to be challenged only under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Writ Petition will not be maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners.
4. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side.
6/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No. 10516 of 2020
5. The subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition pertains to the award passed by the first respondent in exercise of the power under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as against the award passed by the first respondent, appeal will lie only before this Court. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied upon Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The reasoning given by the learned counsel for the petitioners to rely upon Section 74 of the said Act is that the compensation itself was fixed by the first respondent only in line with the guidelines given under the said Act and therefore, the award passed by the first respondent can also be challenged before this Court by virtue of Section 74 of the said Act. 7/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No. 10516 of 2020
6. This Court is not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is true that while fixing the compensation, the guidelines given under the above said Act are being followed. However, it must be borne in mind that the acquisition is under the National Highways Act, 1956 and it is not under the above said Act. Therefore, it becomes important for the Court to see what alternative remedy has been given under the relevant Act (National Highways Act, 1956) and this Court cannot place reliance upon Section 74 of the above said Act.
7. A reading of the National Highways Act, 1956 shows that determination of the amount payable as compensation is dealt with under Section 3(G) of the Act. Section 3(G)(6) of the Act specifically provides that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. Therefore, the arbitration proceedings conducted before the 8/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No. 10516 of 2020 first respondent, wherein the award has been passed by the first respondent, can only be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in view of the fact that such a provision has been made to that effect in the Act itself.
8. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of this Court that the appropriate Forum for the petitioners to challenge the award passed by the first respondent is only before the concerned Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioners.
9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to entertain this Writ Petition. However, this Court is of the view that it is always left open to the petitioners to challenge the award 9/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No. 10516 of 2020 passed by the first respondent in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum.
10. With this, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
17.08.2020 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mra To
1. The District Collector/Arbitrator Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer NH 45-C District Revenue Officer Collectorate, Villupuram.
3. The Project Director National Highways – 45-C, Natarajapuram Colony, Medical College Road, Tanjore.
10/11 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No. 10516 of 2020 N.ANAND VENKATESH. J., mra W.P.No.10516 of 2020 and WMP No.12772 of 2020 17.08.2020 11/11 http://www.judis.nic.in