Allowed

S.Palanimuthu, v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Feb 2018WP/25740/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the arbitrary delay in land acquisition compensation proceedings. The Court held that pending arbitral proceedings infringe the petitioner's rights, directed the Arbitrator to consider provisions of the 2013 Act, and ordered an award within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file additional grounds before Arbitrator within two weeks; first respondent directed to pass award within three months.

S.Palanimuthu, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.02.2018

¶3

CORAM : THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

W.P.No.25740 of 2017

S.Palanimuthu

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector

¶9

O/o. The District Collector

¶10

Salem.

¶11

The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) NH-68, 6.458, Byepass Road Opp to TNEB, Ammapettai (South) Salem.

¶12

The Project Director National Highways Authority of India Narsothipatti, Salem.

¶13

[R3 – suo moto impleaded] ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.09.2017.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah For Respondents: Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali

¶16

Government Advocate [for R1 & R2] Mrs.S.R.Sumath [for R3]

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner owns a piece of land in Survey No.175/6, Masinaickenpatti Village, Valapatti Taluk, Salem District measuring 5.80 acres and that the land was proposed to be acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner received a communication dated 27.04.2009 from the Competent Authority to appear for an enquiry on 08.5.2009, to determine the compensation amount payable, following which an award was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the Arbitrator/first respondent seeking enhancement of compensation and the same is pending. Since the petitioner heard nothing from the Statutory Arbitrator/first respondent, on 01.09.2017, the petitioner made a representation for

¶19

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

¶20

passing of the award. As no response was forthcoming, the petitioner has come forward with this petition.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the grievance of the petitioner is that the property was acquired long back, but the petitioner was inadequately compensated. It is imperative that the arbitrary proceedings are pending apparently for four years and the petitioner was put to considerable hardships. He further added that during the pendency of the arbitrary proceedings, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30/2013) has come into force and in the context to arbitral proceedings, the same must be treated as continuation of the earlier proceedings. Therefore, the Arbitrator as of now, should also consider applying the provisions of Central Act 30/2013, given the spirit behind Section 105-A(2) of the Central Act 30/2013.

¶22

3. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Narsothipatti, Salem is suo moto impleaded as third respondent to this proceedings and Mrs.S.R.Sumathy enters appearance for the third respondent.

¶23

4. Heard Mr.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.

¶24

5. As to the first part of the petitioner's representation, there cannot be any objection that the District Collector/Statutory Arbitrator should complete the arbitral proceedings within a reasonable time, since the petitioner's fundamental right to dignified life depends on his economic status, which the long pending arbitral proceedings unconsciously infringes upon. As to the second part, the petitioner is directed to file an additional set of grounds before the Arbitrator to enable the Arbitrator to consider the application of the Central Act 30/2013 in the context of the submissions made by within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent is directed to pass an award as per law and on the basis of the materials to be produced by the petitioner, within three months thereafter after affording effective opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. With the above directions, this petition is allowed. No costs.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

To:

¶32

The District Collector O/o. The District Collector Salem. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) NH-68, 6.458, Byepass Road Opp to TNEB, Ammapettai (South) Salem. 3. The Project Director National Highways Authority of India Narsothipatti, Salem. +1cc to Mr.S.R.Sumathy, Advocate,sr.12261 +1cc to Mr.ABrar md Abdulla, Advocate, sr.12323 W.P.No.25740 of 2017

¶33

RMP(22/03/2018)

¶34

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

S.Palanimuthu, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Palanimuthu, v. The District Collector

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

M.Elumalai Vs The District Collector

Veerapathira Chettiyar Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Veerapathira Chettiyar, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Balamurugan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

S.Balakrishnan Vs M/S.National Highways

Sri Arulmigu Thiruvaleeswarar Vs The Chief Secretary