Allowed

Vachala Ammal, v. The Arbitrator and District

Madras HC7 Apr 2016WP/8964/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged land acquisition compensation lower than that awarded to an adjacent landowner. Court directed the arbitrator to examine if the higher rate applicable to the peer landowner can be extended to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to first respondent to apply the higher compensation rate, on parity with an adjacent landowner, to the petitioner within four months.

Vachala Ammal, Vs The Arbitrator and District — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.8964 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.7968 of 2016

¶6

Vachala Ammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Arbitrator and District Collector,
Tiruvallur.
2. The Competent Authority and Special District
Revenue Officer, (LA) National Highways 205,
Tiruvallur
3. The Project Director,
NHAI, Project implementation Unit Chennai,
Sri Tower, 3rd Floor, DP 34 (SP)
Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 32. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for records on the file of the first respondent in
Rc.No.9153/12/13 Arbitration dated 04.10.2013, and to quash the
same insofar as its restricts the compensation to Rs.355.00 per
square feet for the lands in S.No.5/9B Perumalpattu Village,
Tiruvellore District, and to direct the enhancement of the
compensation to Rs.533.00 per square feet, as per the orders of
the first respondent in Rc.No.799/2015, Arbitration, dated
23.10.2015.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.Roofas Abraham Government Advocate

¶8

For Respondent-3 : Ms.Sumathy Standing Counsel

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent, who was an Arbitrator, appointed under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'), to consider the claims for enhancement of compensation filed under Section 3 G (5) of the Act.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner's land, comprised in S.No.5/9B, measuring an extent of 769 sq. mts. situate at Perumalpattu Village, Tiruvallur Taluk, was acquired for laying out by-pass road NH-205, under the provisions of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation, computing the same at the rate of Rs.70/- per sq.ft. The petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation, and sought for enhancement by filing Arbitration Claim before the first respondent, on 30.01.2012. It appears that the petitioner, during enquiry of the arbitration claim, requested the compensation to be fixed at the rate of Rs.355/- per sq.ft., being in parity with the compensation awarded to the adjacent landowners. This request was acceded to by the Requisitioning Body, and the first respondent passed the award on 04.10.2013, awarding compensation to be determined at the rate of Rs.355/- per sq.ft.. Subsequently, the petitioner appears to have made a claim for revision of rates, and made a request to revise the award, by reopening the proceeding. This request was not acceded to by the first respondent, by order, dated 23.12.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the adjoining landowner, who owns the land in the same survey number, viz., S.No.5/9B, sought for enhancement of compensation, and after enquiry, the first respondent has fixed a compensation amount by calculating the same at Rs.533/- per sq.ft.

¶14

The petitioner has now come forward with this Writ Petition, requesting that her case may be treated on par with the adjoining landowner, who also owns the land in the same survey number, viz. S.No.5/9B. Though this Court, under normal circumstances, used to hold that the subsequent order cannot be a ground to review the earlier order, however, is of the view that the said proposition cannot be directly applied to the case on hand, since the petitioner, who is an illiterate woman, has lost her valuable property, and she is entitled to just and fair compensation. The fact that the petitioner is an illiterate person cannot be disputed, as she is unable to even sign her name, and she has affixed her thumb impression in the affidavit

¶15

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

¶16

and vakalath filed in connection with this Writ Petition, and submissions were made before the first respondent based on certain advise given to her by somebody at that relevant point of time. Subsequently, she came to know that the adjoining landowner, who owns land in the same survey number, has been given higher compensation.

¶17

Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the first respondent should examine as to whether the benefit, which was extended to one J.Subramani, son of Purushothama Naidu, (viz., the adjacent landowner) in the award, dated 23.10.2015, can be applied to the case of the petitioner as well, and this could be done after conducting enquiry in the matter.

¶18

In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration after notice to the petitioner and hearing her in person. The first respondent is directed to examine as to whether the benefit of the award, dated 23.10.2015, passed in favour of J.Subramani, viz., the adjacent landowner, could be extended to the petitioner's case as well, and as to whether the same amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.533/- per sq.ft., could be awarded to the petitioner, by considering the fact that the petitioner also owns the land in the same survey number, viz. S.No.5/9B. The abovesaid direction be complied with by the first respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

//True Copy//

The Arbitrator and District Collector, Tiruvallur.

¶26

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

¶27

The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, (LA) National Highways 205, Tiruvallur

¶28

The Project Director, NHAI, Project implementation Unit Chennai, Sri Tower, 3rd Floor, DP 34 (SP) Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 32.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No.22424 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.22575

¶30

Writ Petition No.8964 of 2016 NM(CO) CA(27/04/2016)

¶31

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

Vachala Ammal, v. The Arbitrator and District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vachala Ammal, v. The Arbitrator and District

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

P.P.Mohanakrishnan[Deceased] Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

T.N.Secretariat Staff Vs the First Addl.Labour Court

M.Bhama Vs The Special Commissioner

M/S.S.L.O.Industries Ltd., Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

N.S.Subbaih Naidu (deceased) Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Gangai Konda Cholapuram Vs M.Mohan