Allowed

K.Kalaivani, v. The Project Director

Madras HC15 Feb 2016WP/5473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order rejecting the petitioner's request to participate in arbitration proceedings for enhanced land compensation. The Court directed the Arbitrator to permit the petitioner to submit her case to claim enhanced compensation in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 19.01.2016 set aside; 2nd respondent directed to permit petitioner to participate in arbitration proceedings.

K.Kalaivani, Vs The Project Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.5473/2016 & WMP.No.4814/2016

K.Kalaivani

Petitioner

1.The Project Director Project Implementation Unit National Highways Authority of India [NHAI] Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Door No.212-3/D3-1 Sri Nagar Colony Narasothipatti, Salem 636 004.

¶10

2.the District Collector cum Arbitrator Erode District, Dheeran Chinnamalai Maaligai, District Collectorate, Perundurai Road, Erode 638 011.

¶11

3.The District Revenue Officer Competent Authority, NH-47 [L.A.] Erode District Collectorate Building Erode 638 011.

¶12

4.Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition] Erode Taluk National Highways NH-47 [Four Way Project], O/o.The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition] 5^th Floor, District Collectorate Building Erode 638 011. .. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the relevant records relating to impugned order of rejection by the proceedings on the file of the 2^nd respondent in The.Ne.47/Arbitration/2015 dated 19.01.2016 and to quash the same insofar as it relates to lands comprised in Survey Nos.127/1, 127/1B situated at Vijayapuri Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the Arbitration Proceedings and afford the petitioner an opportunity of fair hearing for enhanced compensation in accordance with law for the lands acquired after considering her representation dated 28.12.2015.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.E.Prathap For R1 : M/s.G.Hema for M/s.P.Wilson Associates For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.R.M.Muthukumar, AGP

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard Mr.C.E.Prathap, learned counsel for the petitioner ; M/s.G.Hema, learned counsel accepting notice on behalf of the 1 st respondent ; and Mr.M.R.Muthukumar, learned Additional Government Pleader accepting notice on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 and with their consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶18

2 The lands belonging to the petitioner were acquired for the formation of the Four Way laning of Roads in NH-47. The petitioner has not challenged the acquisition proceedings and the Project has been implemented. The petitioner has claimed enhanced compensation for which purpose she has filed application before the District Collector to consider her case and grant enhanced compensation. This application appears to have not been considered though other similarly placed persons' cases were considered and it is stated that arbitration proceedings are in progress. Since the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the arbitration proceedings, she submitted a representation to the 2 nd respondent on 28.12.2015. In the said representation, she has reiterated the contentions raised in her earlier representation and stated that the fixation of land value is inadequate. The 2 nd respondent, without considering the same, rejected the request of the petitioner on two grounds:-

¶19

[1] Firstly, by stating that the representation said to have been made on 28.12.2015 is not available in the files of the 2nd respondent.

¶20

[2] Secondly, it is stated that under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the claim for enhancement of compensation should be made within a period of three years from the date of passing of an Award.

¶21

3 Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 deals with determination of the amount payable as compensation. Subsection 1 of Section 3G of the said Act states that where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.

¶22

4 It is not in dispute that the 2 nd respondent is an Arbitrator so appointed to arbitrate the issues relating to claims for enhanced compensation. Statute does not prescribe any time limit within which such an application has to be filed.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

5 The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the Act does not provide for any outer limit for any application to be made for claiming the enhanced compensation. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the order order stating that the application for enhancement should have been made within a period of three years is not sustainable.

¶25

6 Further, it is stated that the petitioner's representation was rejected on 19.01.2016 and it can be safely presumed that proper scrutiny of the records could not have been made especially when vast extent of lands were acquired in the formation of National Highways. In any event, in respect of the applications filed by the other land owners, now the arbitration proceedings are in progress. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the 2 nd respondent of the National Highways if the petitioner is also permitted to participate in the arbitration proceedings and put forth their submissions, for enhanced compensation.

¶26

7 In the light of the above, the impugned order is held to be not sustainable in law. 8 In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.01.2016 is set aside. The 2 nd respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the arbitration proceedings and put forth her submissions in support of her claim for enhanced compensation which shall be considered in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
AP
To
1.The Project Director
Project Implementation Unit
National Highways Authority of India [NHAI]
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Door No.212-3/D3-1 Sri Nagar Colony
Narasothipatti, Salem 636 004.

¶28

2.The District Collector cum Arbitrator Erode District, Dheeran Chinnamalai Maaligai, District Collectorate, Perundurai Road, Erode 638 011.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

3.The District Revenue Officer Competent Authority, NH-47 [L.A.] Erode District Collectorate Building Erode 638 011.

¶31

4.Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition]
Erode Taluk National Highways NH-47 [Four Way
Project], O/o.The Special Tahsildar [Land Acquisition]
5 th Floor, District Collectorate Building
Erode 638 011.
1 cc to M/s. P. Wilson Associates, Sr. 9813
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 9652
1 cc to Mr.C.E. Pratap, Advocate, Sr. 5473
WP.No.5473/2016
AK (CO)
kk 24/2

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Kalaivani, v. The Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kalaivani, v. The Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Sudhakar Vs The Coimbatore City Municipal

K.Palani Vs The Commissioner

U.C.Palanisamy, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Mrs.Tottaramudi Mahalakshmi, Vs The District Collector

Mr. G.Munusamy, Vs The Commissioner of

Mr.G.Kanakaraj Vs The Member Secretary