Dismissed

The Project Director, National v. R.Pandiselvi

Madras HC25 Oct 2024CMA(MD)/235/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NHAI challenged orders enhancing land compensation under the Arbitration Act. The High Court applied NHAI v. Hakeem to allow enhancement based on perversity of original awards and parity principles, dismissing appeals.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; NHAI directed to pay enhanced compensation with 9% per annum interest from possession date.

The Project Director, National Vs R.Pandiselvi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.235, 237, 245, 258, 267, 284, 783, 790, 791, 792, 794, 796, 797, 869 & 884 of 2019; C.M.A.(MD) Nos.226, 237, 241, 247, 249, 252, 254, 255, 258, 261, 262, 266, 268, 280, 390, 412, 413, 419, 420, 422, 425, 456, 467, 469, 472, 540, 605 & 622 of 2020; C.M.A.(MD) Nos.109, 192, 343, 345, 394, 426, 448, 449, 493, 502, 503, 519, 1062 & 1066 of 2021; C.M.A.(MD) No.490 of 2022; C.M.A.(MD) Nos.346 & 840 of 2023; and C.M.A.(MD) Nos.468, 431, 452 & 635 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD) Nos.3104, 3203, 3428, 3515, 3716, 3862, 10124,10292, 10294, 10295, 10318, 10336, 10339, 11504 & 11720 of 2019; C.M.P.(MD) Nos.3529, 3572, 3588, 3620, 3622, 3634, 3636, 3637, 3649, 3664, 3667, 3694, 3697, 3734, 4867, 4952, 4955, 5006, 5007, 5023, 5036, 5209, 5252, 5255, 5262, 5667, 6367 & 6502 of 2020; C.M.P.(MD) Nos.966, 1649, 2837, 2843, 3217, 3424, 3046, 3220, 3083, 3847, 3949, 3951, 3045, 3222, 3085, 3236, 4326, 4393, 4408, 4514, 3221, 10106 & 10118 of 2021; C.M.P.(MD) Nos.508 to 510, 513 to 521, 523, 524, 527, 529 to 535, 537, 538 & 4268 of 2022; C.M.P.(MD) Nos.4263 & 11819 of 2023; and C.M.P.(MD) Nos.6240, 5657, 6090 & 7770 of 2024

¶9

C.M.A.(MD) Nos.235 of 2019:

¶10

The Project Director, National Highways No.7, National Highways Authority of India, No.83/-, S.B.I. First Colony Extension,

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 1 of 38_

¶12

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶13

(Near Gowri Krishna Hotel) Bye-Pass Road, Madurai-16 and now Plot No.3, Surya Towers 2^nd Floor, 1^st East Street, K.K.Nagar, Madurai 625 020.

¶14

... Appellant

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.R.Pandiselvi W/o.Rajarathinam

¶17

2.The Special District Revenue Officer/ Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (National Highways-7), Collectorate Building, Madurai – 625 020.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 37(1) & 92) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the order made in Arbitration O.P.No.32 of 2013 dated 26.09.2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai.

¶20

*C.M.A.(MD) No.*	*Appearance*
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.235,	For Appellant : Mr.P.Karthick
237, 245, 267, 284, 783,	Standing Counsel for NHAI
790, 791, 792, 796, 797
& 869 of 2019;	For R1 : Mr.R.Govindaraj
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.226,	Mr.K.Chandrasekaran
237, 241, 247, 249, 252,	Mr.C.Karthikeya
254, 255, 258, 261, 262,
266, 268, 280, 390, 412,	For R2 : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
413, 419, 422, 467, 469, 472, 540, 605, & 622 of 2020	Government Advocate

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 2 of 38_

¶22

		C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.109,	For Appellant	: Mr.P.Karthick
192, 343, 345, 449, 502, & 1066 of 2021;		Standing Counsel for NHAI
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.346	For R1	: Mr.R.Govindaraj
& 840 of 2023; C.M.A. (MD) Nos.468, 431, 452 & 635 of 2024	For R2	Mr.K.Chandrasekaran Mr.C.Karthikeya : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate
C.M.A.(MD) No.258 of 2019	For Appellant	: Mr.P.Karthick Standing Counsel for NHAI
	For R1, R3 to R	7 : Mr.R.Govindaraj Mr.K.Chandrasekaran Mr.C.Karthikeya
	For R2	: Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate
C.M.A.(MD) No.794 of 2019; and	For Appellant	: Mr.P.Karthick Standing Counsel for NHAI
C.M.A.(MD) No.448 of 2021	For R1 & R2	: Mr.R.Govindaraj Mr.K.Chandrasekaran Mr.C.Karthikeya
	For R3	: Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate
C.M.A.(MD) No.884 of 2019; C.M.A.(MD) Nos.394, 426, 493, &	For Appellant	: Mr.P.Karthick Standing Counsel for NHAI
503 of 2021	For R1 to R3	: Mr.R.Govindaraj Mr.K.Chandrasekaran Mr.C.Karthikeya
	For R4	: Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 3 of 38_

¶24

C	.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.420, 425 & 456 of 2020; and C.M.A.(MD) No.490 of 2022 For Appellant For R1	: Mr.P.Karthick Standing Counsel for NHAI : Mr.R.G.Sankar Ganesh
For R2 & R3	: Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate
C.M.A.(MD) No.519 of 2021 For Appellant	: Mr.P.Karthick Standing Counsel for NHAI
For R1 to R4	: Mr.R.Govindaraj Mr.K.Chandrasekaran Mr.C.Karthikeya
For R5	: Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate
C.M.A.(MD) No.1062 of 2021 For Appellant	: Mr.P.Karthick Standing Counsel for NHAI
For R1	: Mr.R.R.Kannan
For R2	: Mr.M.Muthumanikkam Government Advocate

¶25

¶26

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶27

The captioned appeals have been filed by the National Highways Authority of India challenging the orders passed by the learned Principal District Judges of Madurai and Theni Districts in applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act').

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 4 of 38_

¶29

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶30

The facts leading to the filing of the above appeals are as follows:

¶31

(a) The lands belonging to the persons in Madurai and Theni Districts (hereinafter referred to as 'landowners') were acquired by the National Highways Authority of India by different Notifications for the same project during the same period of time.

¶32

(b)The competent authority under Section 3G of the Arbitration Act determined, the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquisition of their lands.

¶33

(c) Since the value of the lands fixed by the competent authority was not acceptable to the landowners, they approached the Arbitrators, who are the District Collectors of Madurai and Theni Districts, appointed by the Central Government under Section 3G(5) of the Arbitration Act and sought for enhancement of the compensation.

¶34

(d)The Arbitrators/District Collectors confirmed the value of the lands and the compensation determined by the competent authority.

¶35

(e) Aggrieved by the said awards, the landowners filed applications before the Principal District Courts of Madurai and Theni Districts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act seeking to set aside the award of the Arbitrators/District Collectors.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 5 of 38_

¶37

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶38

(f) The learned Principal District Judges found that the value determined by the competent authorities and confirmed by the Arbitrators was not in accordance with law and enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners.

¶39

(g)Aggrieved by the said orders, the National Highways Authority of India has preferred the instant appeals, under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

¶40

For the sake of clarity and convenience, details of the acquisition,

¶41

the compensation awarded by the competent authority, which was confirmed by the Arbitrators, and the compensation enhanced by the Principal District Judges under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are given

¶42

below:

¶43

*Sl.* N o *C.M.A. (MD)* *Nos./ Party* *Name* & *Village*	*Acquired* *Extent*	*Date of* *3A(1)* *Noti.*	*Dated of* *3D(1)* *Noti.*	*Compensation Awarded* *by LAO/CALA* *Award No. & Date*	*PDJ* *Court & Ar.O.P. No.* & *Enhanced Compensation* *Amount*
C.M.A.(MD) No. 468/2024	222 Sq.m (or)			ROC No. 49/2010/Spl.DRO/LA Dt:15.05.2014	PDJ (Theni) Arb.O.P.No.7/2018 Rs.3,770/-
1 M.S.Manoharan Thamaraikulam	5.485 Cents House sites	18.06.12	13.05.13	Rs.2,695/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.1,09,067/- per cent	Per Sq.m (or) Rs.1,52,572/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.5,20,705/-
2 C.M.A.(MD) No. 431/2024 U.Chitradevi Thamaraikulam	187 Sq.m (or) 4.620 Cents House sites	18.06.12	13.05.13	ROC No. 49/2010/Spl.DRO/LA Dt:15.05.2014 Rs.2,695/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.1,09,067/- per cent	PDJ (Theni) Arb.O.P.No.12/2018 Rs.3,770/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.1,52,572/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.4,38,612/-

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 6 of 38_

¶45

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶46

CMA(MD) No			ROC No. 49/2010/Spl.DRO/LA	PDJ (Theni) Arb.O.P.No.02/2018
3 ... . 452/2024 S.Susila Thamaraikulam	113 Sq.m (or) 2.792 Cents House sites	18.06.12	13.05.13 Dt:15.05.2014 Rs.540/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.21,854/- per cent	Rs.3,770/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.1,52,572/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.5,32,910/-
4 C.M.A.(MD) No. 109/2021 J.Nivaskar Chinnamanaickan patti	1544 Sq.m (or) 38.151 Cents	24.04.06	14.11.06 ROC No.B10/111591/2005 Dt:14.02.2007 Rs.106.39/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.4,306/- per cent ----------------- Total - Rs.35,827/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.91/2015 Rs.6,650/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.2,83,056/-
			ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.06/2018
5 C.M.A.(MD) No. 192/2021 L.S.C.Parama Sivam Thanichiyam	100 Sq.m (or) 2.470 Cents House site with Building	28.07.06	19.01.07 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.6,54,872/- for Building	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs. 17,362/- Per Cent For Land - Rs.58,193/- For Building - Rs.8,42,400/-
			----------------- Total - Rs.7,36,646/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.1,63,947/-
			ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.08/2015
6 C.M.A.(MD) No. 226/2020 Ankuthayammal Thanichiyam	57 Sq.m (or) 1.152 Cents House site with Building	28.07.06	19.01.07 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.2,49,471/- for Building -----------------	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land - Rs.27,140/- For Building - Rs.3,40,848/-
			Total - Rs.2,83,701/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.84,287/-
7 C.M.A.(MD) No. 235/2019 R.Pandiselvi Thanakkankulam	554.5 Sq.m (or) 13.701 Cents House site	30.06.05	14.06.06 ROC No.B9/114808/2004 Dt:12.04.2007 Rs.144.13/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.5833/- Per cent for House site ----------------- Total - Rs.78,857/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.31/2013 Rs.23,365/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.3,74,028/-
8 C.M.A.(MD) No. 237/2019 S.Pandimadevi Thanakkankulam	554.5 Sq.m (or) 13.701 Cents House site	30.06.05	14.06.06 ROC No.B9/114808/2004 Dt:12.04.2007 Rs.144.13/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.5833/- Per cent for House site ----------------- Total - Rs.78,857/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.30/2013 Rs.23,365/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.3,74,028/-

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 7 of 38_

¶48

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶49

			ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.16/2017
9 C.M.A.(MD) No. 237/2020 S.Latha Thanichiyam CMA(MD) N	142 Sq.m (or) 3.508 Cents House site with Building	28.07.06 19.01.07	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.2,15,328/- for Building ----------------- Total - Rs.2,59,988/- ROC No.B10/111595/2005 Dt:04.06.2007	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land Rs.82,650/- For Building Rs.3,14,772/- Enhanced Amount - Rs.1,37,434/- PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.50/2014 Rs.12,000/- Per Cent Enhanced compensation for
... o. 241/2020	1625 Sq.m (or)		Rs.12.34/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.499/- Per cent + 38	land Amount - Rs.6,54,012/- Open well - Rs.3,25,220/- ll /
10 M.Chellamuthu Gunder	40.153 Cents Punja Land	28.07.06 19.01.07	Coconut Trees + 1 Sq. Well + 100ft Nut Bore and 6 Nos Side Bore 200	Open We - Rs.1,75,000- 38 Coconut Treets - Rs.2,28,000/-
Kulaseakaran- kottai			ft each Totally 7 Bores for Land --------------------- Total - Rs.2,57,080/-	---------------- Total - Rs.13,82,232/- Less Already Received - Rs.2,57,080/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.11,25,152/-
C.M.A.(MD) No. 245/2019	554.5 Sq.m (or) 13.701		ROC No.B9/114808/2004 Dt:12.04.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.32/2013 Rs.23,365/-
11 E.Pandeeswari	Cents House site	30.06.05 14.06.06	Rs.144.13/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.5833/- Per cent	Per Cent
Thanakkankulam			for House site ----------------- Total – Rs.78,857/-	Enhanced Amount - Rs.3,74,028/-
			ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.07/2015
12 C.M.A.(MD) No. 247/2020 P.Thirupathi	110 Sq.m (or) 2.718 Cents	280706190107	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs210475/- for	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs. 17,362/- Per Cent
Thanichiyam	House site with Building	.. ..	.,, Building ----------------- Total - Rs.2,49,438/-	For Land : Rs.64,037/- For Building : Rs.2,77,174/- Enhanced Amount Rs.91,773/-
			ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.09/2015
13 C.M.A.(MD) No. 249/2020 K.Saratha Thanichiyam	250 Sq.m (or) 6.177 Cents House site with Building	28.07.06 19.01.07	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.33,352/- for Building ----------------- Total - Rs.77,404/-	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.1,45,532/- For Building : Rs.2,08,258/- Enhanced Amount Rs.2,76,386/-

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 8 of 38_

¶51

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch
PDJ (Madurai)
ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Arb.O.P.No.10/2015
Dated: 30.07.2007
C.M.A.(MD) No.
Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or)
252/2020 300 Sq.m
Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m Rs.17,362/- Per Cent
T.Karuppiah (or) 7.412
14 28.07.06 19.01.07 (or) Rs.5990/- per cent
Cents
-----------------
For Land Rs.1,74,628/-
Thanichiyam House site
Total - Rs.48,860/-
Enhanced Amount
Rs.1,25,768/-
PDJ (Madurai)
ROC No.B9/9166/2006
Arb.O.P.No.333/2015
Dated: 30.07.2007
C.M.A.(MD) No. 37 Sq.m
Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.
254/2020 (or) 0.914 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m
17,362/- Per Cent
V.Karunanithi Cents (or) Rs.5990/- per cent
15 28.07.06 19.01.07 For Land : Rs.21,535/-
House site Rs.57,304/- For Building
For Building : Rs.2,14,255/-
Thanichiyam With
-----------------
Building
Enhanced Amount
Total - Rs.69,060/-
Rs.1,66,730/-
ROC
No.B9/114808/2004 PDJ (Madurai)
Dt:12.04.2007 Arb.O.P.No.26/2014
C.M.A.(MD) No.
250 Sq.m (or)
255/2020
6.177 Cents Rs.144.13/- Per Sq.m. Rs.23,365/-
16 T.Arumugam 30.06.05 14.06.06
House site (or) Rs.5833/- Per cent Per Cent
for House site
Thanakkankulam
----------------- Enhanced Amount
Total – Rs.39,636/- Rs.1,64,550/-
ROC
No.B10/110054/2004 PDJ (Madurai)
Dt:29.03.2007 Arb.O.P.No.63/2013
C.M.A.(MD) No.
1,460 Sq.m
258/2019
(or) 36.076 Rs.123.24/- Per Sq.m. Rs.22,651/-
17 R.Ramadoss 26.04.05 13.04.06
Cents (or) Per Cent
Rs.4,987.52/- Per cent
Melakottai
----------------- Enhanced Amount
Total – Rs.1,97,923/- Rs.9,59,171/-
PDJ (Madurai)
Arb.O.P.No.41/2014
1200 Sq.m (or) ROC Rs.12,000/- Per Cent
29.651 Cents No.B10/111595/2005
C.M.A.(MD) No.
Dry Lands Dt:04.06.2007 For land : Rs.4,82,956/-
258/2020
With For 5 Sheds : Rs.4,13,472/-
C.Sundari
18 4 Poultry 28.07.06 19.01.07 Rs.139.93/- Per Sq.m. ------------------
Sheds and One (or) Rs.5,663/- Per cent Total : Rs.8,96,428/-
Kulaseakaran-
Residential ----------------- Less Already
kottai
Shed Total - Rs.2,40,422/- Received : Rs.2,40,422/-
Enhanced Compensation
Rs.6,56,006/-

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 9 of 38_

¶53

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶54

19 C.M.A.(MD) No. 261/2020 M.Sekar Thanichiyam	27 Sq.m (or) 0.545 Cents House site With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.95,729/- For Building ------------------ Total - Rs.1,09,699/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.06/2015 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs. 17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.12,840/- For Building : Rs.1,27,397/- Enhanced Amount Rs.30,538/-
20 C.M.A.(MD) No. 262/2020 K.Chandran Thanichiyam	100 Sq.m (or) 2.470 Cents House site With Bildi	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent For Building - Rs.1,68,898/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.32/2015 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs. 17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.58,193/- For Building : Rs.2,51,009/-
	ung			------------------ Total -Rs.1,83,704/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.1,07,128/-
				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.12/2015
21 C.M.A.(MD) No. 266/2020 A.Ravi Thanichiyam	68 Sq.m (or) 1.374 Cents House site With	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.2,58,633/- For Building ------------------	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs. 17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.32,372/- For Building : Rs.3,72,600/-
	Building			Total - Rs.2,95,571/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.1,09,401/-
22 C.M.A.(MD) No. 267/2019 A.Lakshmanan Melakottai	629 Sq.m (or) 15.542 Cents	26.04.05	13.04.06	ROC No.B10/110054/2004 Dt:29.03.2007 Rs.123.24/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.4,987.52/- Per cent ----------------- Total - Rs.85,270/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.64/2013 Rs.22,651/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.4,13,222/-
23 C.M.A.(MD) No. 268/2020 Dhanalakshmi Ammal Thanichiyam	343 Sq.m (or) 8.475 Cents Land With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.4,17,170/- For Building ------------------ Total - Rs.5,14,750/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.34/2015 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs. 17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.1,99,673/- For Building : Rs.5,48,921/- Enhanced Amount Rs.2,33,844/-

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 10 of 38_

¶56

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶57

24 C.M.A.(MD) No. 280/2020 S.Thiruvenkadam	567 Sq.m (or) 14.010 Cents	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.5,992/- Per cent ------------------	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.70/2013 Rs.17,362/- Per Cent
Thaniciyam				Total - Rs.92,345/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.2,37,735/-
C.M.A.(MD) No. 284/2019	600 Sq.m (or)			ROC No.B10/110054/2004 Dt:29.03.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.65/2013
25 R.Chandra Boopathy Melakottai	14.825 Cents Wet Land	26.04.05	13.04.06	Rs.123.24/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.4,987.52/- Per cent ------------------ Total – Rs.81,338/-	Rs.22,651/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.3,94,156/-
26 C.M.A.(MD) No. 343/2021 K.Pappu Thanichiyam	110 Sq.m (or) 2.718 Cents Land With	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.1,36,504/- For Building	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.09/2018 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.64,037/- For Building: Rs.4,87,779/-
	Building			------------------ Total - Rs.1,68,070/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.3,83,746/-
27 C.M.A.(MD) No. 345/2021 R.Raja	1152 Sq.m (or) 28.465 Cents	24.04.06	14.11.06	ROC No.B10/111593/2005 Dated: 22.02.2007 R2665/ P S	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.85/2015 Rs.8,820/- Per Cent
Thumbichampatti				s..- er q.m. (or) Rs.1,200/- Per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.37,573/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.3,05,460/-
28 C.M.A.(MD) No. 346/2023 M.Eskilinraj	600 Sq.m (or) 14.825 Cents of house sites	^26.04.05	^13.04.06	ROC No.A2/174/2006 Dt:26.06.2008 Rs.129.19/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.5,228/- Per cent	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.49/2015 Rs.22,651/- Per Cent
Melakottai				------------------ Total - Rs.85,625/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.3,72,096/-
29 C.M.A.(MD) No. 390/2020 Mariyammal Thaniciyam	94 Sq.m (or) 2.322 Cents House Site	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.14.83/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.600/- Per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.1,533/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.16/2016 Rs.17,362/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.53,175/-

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 11 of 38_

¶59

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶60

30 C.M.A.(MD) No. 394/2021 K.Chellasamy Thanichiyam	24 Sq.m (or) 0.593 Cents Land With Bildi	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.12,769/- For Building	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.07/2018 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs. 17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.13,972/- For Building: Rs.81,842/-
	ung			------------------ Total - Rs.17,955/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.77,859/-
				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.31/2015
31 C.M.A.(MD) No. 412/2020 P.Muniyasamy Thanichiyam	100 Sq.m (or) 2.470 Cents House site With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.77,715/- For Building ------------------	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.58,192/- For Building: Rs.2,93,513/-
				Total - Rs.92,321/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.2,50,123/-
32 C.M.A.(MD) No. 413/2020 R.Sethuramalinga m Thanichiyam	100 Sq.m (or) 2.470 Cents Land With Bildi	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.3,79,917/- For Building	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.35/2015 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.82,650/- For Building: Rs.3,14,772/-
	ung			------------------ Total - Rs.4,30,895/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.1,94,020/-
33 C.M.A.(MD) No. 419/2020 Vanjathal Kulaseakaran- kottai	156 Sq.m (or) 3.854 Cents With 2 Coconut Trees	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B10/111595/2005 Dt:04.06.2007 Rs.12.34/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.499/- Per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.10,917/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.95/2015 Rs.12,000/- Per Cent For land : Rs.62,774/- For Coconut Trees : Rs.12,000/- ------------------- Total : Rs.74,474/- Less Already Received : Rs.10,917/-
					Enhanced Compensation Rs.63,857/-
34 C.M.A.(MD) No. 420/2020 K.Bose Thuvariman	3,200 Sq.m (or) 79.070 Cents	02.12.05	11.05.06	ROC No.B9/114810/2004 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.36.69/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.1485/- Per cent ------------------ Total – Rs.1,15,847/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.46/2013 Enhanced Amount Rs.10,06,188/-

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 12 of 38_

¶62

422/2020
35

¶63

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶64

35 C.M.A.(MD) No. 422/2020 K.Vallatharasu Thaniciyam	46 Sq.m (or) 1.136 Cents of House Site	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.14.83/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.600/- Per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.750/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.14/2016 Rs.17,362/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.26,014/-
36 C.M.A.(MD) No. 425/2020 T.Ashok Kumar Thuvariman	2,580 Sq.m (or) 63.750 Cents	^02.12.05	^11.05.06	ROC No.B9/114810/2004 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.36.69/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.1,485/- Per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.1,23,791/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.44/201 Enhanced Amount Rs.8,79,358/-
				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.12/2017
37 C.M.A.(MD) No. 426/2021 Chellasamy Thanichiyam	19 Sq.m (or) 0.469 Cents House Site With	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.29,583/- For Building	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.11,050/- For Building: Rs.96,422/-
	Building			------------------ Total - Rs.35,636/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.71,836/-
C.M.A.(MD) No. 448/2021	420 Sq.m			ROC No. B10/111594/2005 Dated 14.05.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.98/2015
38 V.S.Venkadachal am	(or) 10.378 Cents	^28.07.06	^19.01.07	Rs.10.88/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.440/- Per cent	Rs.12,000/- Per Cent
Thathampatti				------------------ Total – Rs.5,027/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.1,64,010/-
39 C.M.A.(MD) No. 449/2021 C.Tharani Thumbichampatti	250 Sq.m (or) 6.177 Cents with Rice Mill, Shed, Kalam	24.04.06	14.11.06	ROC No.B10/111593/2005 Dated: 22.02.2007 Rs.46.91/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.1,898/- Per cent Rs.1,52,245/- For the Structure Value ------------------ Total - Rs.1,80,370/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.86/2015 Rs.8,820/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.61,539/-
40 C.M.A.(MD) No. 456/2020 R.Sampath	2400 Sq.m (or) 59.30 Cents	02.12.05	11.05.06	ROC No.B9/114810/2004 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.36.69/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.1485/- Per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.96,862/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.43/201 Enhanced Amount Rs.7,54,647/-

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 13 of 38_

¶66

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶67

41 C.M.A.(MD) No. 467/2020 P.Stella	166 Sq.m (or) 4.101 Cents of House site	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/21352/2006 Dated: 15.05.2007 Rs.12.35/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.500/- Per cent	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.66/2013 Rs.5,201/- Per Cent
Thenur I Bit				------------------ Total - Rs.2,255/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.26,689/-
C.M.A.(MD) No. 469/2020	440 S			ROC No.B10/111595/2005 Dt:04.06.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.96/2015
42 P.Sundammal	q.m (or) 10.872 Cents	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.12.34/- Per Sq.m. (or)	Rs.12,000/- Per Cent
Kulaseakaran- kottai				Rs.499/- Per cent --------------- Total – Rs.5,973/-	Enhanced Compensation Rs.1,71,110/-
43 C.M.A.(MD) No. 472/2020 L.S.C.Paramasiva m	31 Sq.m (or) 0.765 Cents House Site With	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.1,54,261/- For Building	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.11/2017 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.18,024/- For Building: Rs.2,16,186/-
Thanichiyam	Building			------------------ Total - Rs.1,74,736/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.59,474/-
44 C.M.A.(MD) No. 490/2022 P.Rajendran	3,180 Sq.m (or) 78.577 Cents	02.12.05	11.05.06	ROC No.B9/114810/2004 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.36.69/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.1485/- Per cent ------------------- Total – Rs.1,32,193/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.26/2016 Enhanced Amount Rs.10,38,066/-
45 C.M.A.(MD) No. 493/2021 M.Rajendran Thanichiyam	41Sq.m (or) 1.013 Cents Land With	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.2,12,322/- For Building	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.36/2015 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.23,867/- For Building : Rs.2,76,307/-
	Building			------------------ Total - Rs.2,40,232/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.59,942/-
46 C.M.A.(MD) No. 502/2021 S.Sivabalan Thathampatti	2,750 Sq.m (or) 67.951 Cents	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No. B10/111594/2005 Dated 14.05.2007 Rs.25.58/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.1,035/- Per cent ------------------- Total - Rs.74,379/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.99/2015 Rs.12,000/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.10,29,407/-

¶68

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 14 of 38_

¶69

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶70

47 C.M.A.(MD) No. 503/2021 K.Chellasamy Thanichiyam	33 Sq.m (or) 0.815 Cents House site With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.64,228/- For Building ------------------	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.05/2018 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.19,202/- For Building: Rs.2,06,608/-
				Total - Rs.76,091/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.1,49,719/-
C.M.A.(MD) No.				ROC No.B10/111593/2005 Dated: 22.02.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.87/2015
48 519/2021 G.Devarajan Thumbichampatti	1,019 Sq.m (or) 25.179 Cents	24.04.06	14.11.06	Rs.29.65/- Per Sq.m., 46.91 Per Sq.m. (or) Rs. 1,200/- , Rs.1,898 Per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.1,97,844/-	Rs.8,820/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.2,66,989/-
				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.14/2015
49 C.M.A.(MD) No. 540/2020 K.Palaniyandi	61 Sq.m (or) 1.507 Cents	280706	190107	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent R66135/	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs. 17,362/- Per Cent
Thanichiyam	House site With	..	..	s.,- For Building ------------------	For Land : Rs.26,165/- For Building: Rs.2,28,614/-
	Building			Total - Rs.82,683/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.1,62,471/-
C.M.A.(MD) No. 605/2020	128 Sq.m (or)			ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.15/2016
50 C.Selvam	3.162 Cents of House Site	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.14.83/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.600/- Per cent	Rs.17,362/- Per Cent
Thanichiyam				------------------ Total - Rs.2,088/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.72,410/-
C.M.A.(MD) No. 622/2020	1450 Sm (or)			ROC No.B10/111591/2005 Dt:14.02.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.20/2014
51 R.Karuppaih Chinnamanaic- kanpatti	q. 35.829 Cents	24.04.06	14.11.06	Rs.106.39/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.4,306/- per cent ----------------- Total – Rs.1,69,692/-	Rs.6,650/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.1,55,855/-
C.M.A.(MD) No.				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.69/2013
52 635/2024 V.Krishnasamy	1,267 Sq.m (or) 31.307 Cents	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.14.83/- Per Sq.m. (or) Rs.600/- Per cent	Rs.11,112/- Per Cent
Thanichiyam				------------------- Total - Rs.20,669/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.4,51,408/-

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 15 of 38_

¶72

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶73

53 C.M.A.(MD) No. 783/2019 V.Rajammal Thanichiyam	20 Sq.m (or) 0.494 Cents Land With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.9,925/- For Building ------------------	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.13/2017 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.11,639/- For Building : Rs.62,675/-
				Total - Rs.14,175/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.60,139/-
				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.4/2018
C.M.A.(MD) No. 790/2019	56 Sq.m (or) 1.383			Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent
54 A.Ramuchettiar Thanichiyam	Cents House site With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.2,63,473/- For Building ------------------	For Land : Rs.32,585/- For Building: Rs.3,50,633/
				Total - Rs.2,98,941/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.84,277/-
55 C.M.A.(MD) No. 791/2019 V.Rajalakshmi Thanichiyam	14 Sq.m (or) 0.345 Cents House Site With	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5,990/- per cent Rs.4,836/- For Building	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.02/2018 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land Rs.8,128/-
	Building			------------------ Total - Rs.7,600/-	Enhanced Amount - Rs.5,848/-
56 C.M.A.(MD) No. 792/2019 K.Baskaran Thanichiyam	19 Sq.m (or) 0.469 Cents House Site With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.25,553/- For Building ------------------ Total – Rs.31,203/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.31/2017 For Land : Rs.11,050/- For Building : Rs.95,541/- Enhanced Amount Rs.75,358/-
				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.03/2018
C.M.A.(MD) No. 794/2019	250 Sq.m (or) 6.177			Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent
57 T.Murugan Thanichiyam	Cents House site With	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.72,708/- For Building ------------------	For Land : Rs.1,45,532/- For Building: Rs.2,82,113/-
	Building			Total - Rs.1,20,695/-	Enhanced Amount Rs.3,06,950/-

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 16 of 38_

¶75

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶76

				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.15/2017
58 C.M.A.(MD) No. 796/2019 K.Mathanavalli Thanichiyam	48 Sq.m (or) 1.186 Cents House Site With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.2,50,094/- For Building ------------------ Total - Rs.2,82,921/-	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.27,942/- For Building: Rs.4,67,328/- Enhanced Amount Rs.2,12,349/-
59 C.M.A.(MD) No. 797/2019 K.Baskaran Thanichiyam	21 Sq.m (or) 0.518 Cents House site With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007 Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.3,420/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.30/2016 Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land – Rs.12,205/- Enhanced Amount Rs.8,785/-
C.M.A.(MD) No. 840/2023				ROC No.B10/111593/2005 Dated: 22.02.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.25/2014
60 A.Shanthi Thumbichampatti	800 Sq.m (or) 19.764 Cents	^24.04.06	^14.11.06	Rs.29.65/- Per Sq.m., (or) Rs.1,200/- Per cent ------------------ Total - Rs.26,092/-	Rs.8,820/- Per Cent Enhanced Amount Rs.2,12,122/-
				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.1/2018
61 C.M.A.(MD) No. 869/2019 T.Kottaichamy Thanichiyam	244 Sq.m (or) 6.024 Cents Land With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.2,20,748/- For Building ------------------ Total - Rs.2,82,572/-	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.1,42,044/- For Building:Rs.3,38,061/- Enhanced Amount Rs.1,97,547/-
				ROC No.B9/9166/2006 Dated: 30.07.2007	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.08/2018
62 C.M.A.(MD) No. 884/2019 V.George Thanichiyam	200 Sq.m (or) 4.94 Cents House Site With Building	28.07.06	19.01.07	Rs.148.06/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.5990/- per cent Rs.1,27,517/- For Building ------------------ Total - Rs.1,72,842/-	Rs.429/- Per Sq.m (or) Rs.17,362/- Per Cent For Land : Rs.1,16,412/- For Building: Rs.4,49,662/- Enhanced Amount Rs.3,93,232/-
63 C.M.A.(MD) No. 1062/2021 R.Prakash Babu Thuvariman	819 Sq.m. and 65 sq.mts. or 20.24 Cents and 1.01 Cents Land	02.12.05	03.08.06	ROC No.B9/114810/2004 Dated: 26.03.2007 Award Amount Rs.35,677/-	PDJ (Madurai) Arb.O.P.No.27/2015 Enhanced Amount Rs.2,77,959/-

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 17 of 38_

¶78

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch
ROC
No.B9/114808/2004 PDJ (Madurai)
C.M.A.(MD) No. Dt:12.04.2007 Arb.O.P.No.58/2014
200 Sq.m (or)
1066/2021
4.941 Cents
64 K.Vasantharani 30.06.05 14.06.06 Rs.144.13/- Per Sq.m. Rs.23,365/- Per Cent
House site
(or) Rs.5,833/- Per cent
Thanakkankulam for House site Enhanced Amount
-------------------
Rs.1,31,643/-
Total - Rs.31,709/-

¶79

4 (a). The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

¶80

orders passed by the learned Principal District Judges of Madurai and Theni Districts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are liable to be set aside, since the learned Principal District Judges have modified the awards, which are contrary to the settled principles of law.

¶81

4 (b). The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in NHAI (National Highways Authority of India), by its Project Director, PIU, Salem-4 Vs. District Collector cum Arbitrator (LA-NH7), Dharmapuri, and others , dated 15.12.2023 , rendered in C.M.A.No.2763 of 2023 , and submitted that under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Principal District Judge has no power to modify the award and at best, the awards can be set aside and remanded back to the Arbitrators/District Collectors to determine the compensation afresh.

¶82

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 18 of 38_

¶83

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶84

4 (c). The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in The Project Director, National Highways No.45E and 220, Madurai Vs. N.Syed Levai Rowther and others, etc. , dated 26.06.2024 , rendered in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.14864 of 2023, etc. , wherein this Court, while condoning the delay in preferring appeals, held that the District Court had not acted within the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

¶85

4 (d). The learned counsel submitted that the question as to whether

¶86

the award can be modified or not under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was referred to a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is pending consideration and these appeals can await the answer to the reference by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶87

5 (a). The learned counsels for the landowners, per contra, submitted that all these cases relate to the acquisition of lands for the same project done for the same period, pursuant to different notifications issued for different villages; that the appellant had not challenged the compensation awarded to some of the landowners, who were awarded the

¶88

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 19 of 38_

¶89

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶90

enhanced compensation in the applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act; that the appeals filed by the appellant in other cases have been dismissed at the condone delay stage; and that on parity, the landowners in these cases are also entitled to the very same compensation.

¶91

5 (b). The learned counsel further submitted that in respect of the very same notification issued for acquisition of lands situated within Thanichiyam Village and other adjacent Villages, another Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in The Project Director, National Highways No.7, Madurai Vs. R.Karuppiah and another, etc. , dated 08.02.2024 rendered in C.M.A.(MD) No.104 of 2019 etc. batch , held that though the Principal District Judge may not have power to modify the awards, since the value fixed by the Arbitrators/Collectors was very low and based on perverse reasoning, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Principal District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench followed the observations in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Project Director, National Highways No.45E and 220, National Highways Authority of India Vs. M.Hakeem and another , reported in (2021) 9 SCC 1 .

¶92

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 20 of 38_

¶93

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶94

5 (c). The learned counsel further submitted that similarly, another

¶95

Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in The Project Director, National Highways No.45E and 220, Madurai Vs. D.Muruganandan, and another , dated 01.08.2024 rendered in C.M.A.(MD) No.164 of 2024 , in respect of the lands acquired for the same project, had confirmed the order passed by the District Court in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

¶96

5 (d). The learned counsel further submitted that, in M.Hakeem's

¶97

case cited supra , in respect of the lands acquired under the same notification, where the compensation determined by the Arbitrator was enhanced by the Principal District Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and confirmed by this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although there is no power to modify the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in the facts of that case, the order passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act need not be interfered with, as the compensation determined by the Arbitrator was on a perverse basis and contrary to the actual market value of the land, and the remand of the matter would cause grave hardships to the landowners, since the awards were passed nearly 7 to 10 years ago.

¶98

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 21 of 38_

¶99

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶100

The point for consideration in the instant appeals is whether the orders passed by the Principal District Judges of Madurai and Theni Districts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are liable to be set aside.

¶101

Admittedly, the awards of the Arbitrators have been modified by the Principal District Courts by enhancing the compensation payable to the landowners.

¶102

It is also the admitted case that the landowners, whose lands were acquired under a similar notification issued for the same project or by the same notification, were paid compensation on the basis of orders passed by the District Courts under Section 34 of the Act, pursuant to the dismissal of S.L.Ps. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem's case cited supra .

¶103

By an order dated 08.02.2024 in C.M.A.No.104 of 2019 etc.

¶104

batch in which the compensation awarded to the similarly placed persons were challenged by the appellant, this Court, by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem's case cited supra , held that on

¶105

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 22 of 38_

¶106

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶107

parity, the landowners are entitled to the compensation enhanced by the Principal District Courts.

¶108

Another Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.164 of 2024 had confirmed the order passed by the District Court under Section 34 of the Act by citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem's case cited supra .

¶109

It is also seen that another Division Bench of this Court, in respect of the lands acquired under a different notification and situated within Dharmapuri District, vide order dated 15.12.2023 in C.M.A.No. 2763 of 2023, held that the award of the Arbitrator cannot be modified under Section 34 of the Act. However, the Division Bench of this Court found that the value fixed by the competent authority and Arbitrator was too low, and the appellant had taken advantage of the ignorance and gullibility of the Arbitrator and obtained orders. The Division Bench hence set aside the order passed under Section 34 of the Act and directed the Collector to re-fix the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, read with the Arbitration Act.

¶110

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 23 of 38_

¶111

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶112

Similarly, another Division Bench of this Court in the condone

¶113

delay petitions in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.14864 of 2023, etc., in respect of the acquisition of lands held that each case has to be decided on its own merits depending on the facts and circumstances, and held that all the orders passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act cannot be confirmed, as the modification of the award is contrary to the settled principles of law.

¶114

The Division Bench of this Court in R.Karuppiah's case cited supra had elaborately considered all the judgments, which had discussed the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem's case cited supra and held as follows:

¶115

“ 30. The gamut of case-law on the matter has been taken note of and discussed in Project Director (NHAI) V. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1 which decision is relied on by both parties. That judgment disposed a batch of appeals that arose from the same acquisition as is the subject matter of the present case. This Court had concluded that as far as Arbitral awards made under the National Highways (NHAI) Act, 1956 were concerned, Section 34 must be read as if it permitted modification of the award made under the Highways Act enhancing compensation awarded originally.

¶116

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 24 of 38_

¶117

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶118

31. The question that arose in that matter was thus, on point, as to whether the power of the Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act ‘to set aside an award of an Arbitrator would include the power to modify such award’. After referring to the judgments in Kinnari Mullick V. Ghanshyam Das Damani, (2018) 11 SCC 328 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. V. Navigant Technologies (P) Ltd. (2021) 1 SCC 657 and other judgments, the Apex Court reiterates that power under Section 34 was limited to either setting aside the matter or remanding it back to the Arbitrator in the event an error was detected.

¶119

32. At paragraph 48, they state as follows:

¶120

48. Quite obviously if one were to include the power to modify an award in Section 34, one would be crossing the Lakshman Rekha and doing what, according to the justice of a case, ought to be done. In interpreting a statutory provision, a Judge must put himself in the shoes of Parliament and then ask whether Parliament intended this result. Parliament very clearly intended that no power of modification of an award exists in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. It is only for Parliament to amend the aforesaid provision in the light of the experience of the courts in the working of the Arbitration Act, 1996, and bring it in line with other legislations the world over.

¶121

Thus, the conclusion in law is to the effect that there was no power to modify, revise or vary an award that could be read into Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

¶122

33. From paragraph 49 onwards, the matter takes a dramatic turn. On merits the specific submission was, as in the present cases, was that parity in compensation awarded as between landowners covered by the same Notification must be maintained. It was noted by the Apex Court that the NHAI had not filed appeals in all matters and there were some instances where land owners had got away with higher compensation, whereas others had

¶123

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 25 of 38_

¶124

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶125

been awarded reduced/lower amounts.

¶126

34. The Court also took note of the fact that the quantification of the compensation, was itself perverse, that is, by taking into account the guideline value, which would not be relevant for determining of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

¶127

35. They say at paragraph 50 that ’the arbitral award in these cases is given by a government servant appointed by the Central Government, the result being the rubber stamping of compensation awarded on a completely perverse basis. Given the fact that, in these petitions at least, the constitutional validity of the NH Amendment Act, 1997 has not been challenged, we must proceed on the basis that grave injustice would be done if we were to interfere on facts, set aside the awards and remand the matter to the very government servant who took into account depressed land values which were relevant for purposes of stamp duty only’.This position is analogous to the present appeals as well.

¶128

36. At paragraph 56, they made an observation that there could be no differential compensation awarded as the public purpose sought to be achieved is one and the same. Paragraph 56 reads thus:

¶129

'56. There can be no doubt that differential compensation cannot be awarded on the ground that a different public purpose is sought to be achieved. Also, the legislature cannot say that, however laudable the public purpose and however important it is to expedite the process of land acquisition, differential compensation is to be paid depending upon the public purpose involved or the statute involved.’

¶130

37. They then take the case of a land owner who has two parcels of lands close to each other, one abutting the National Highway and the other some distance from the National Highway and, in that context, state as follows:

¶131

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 26 of 38_

¶132

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶133

57. Take the case of a single owner of land who has two parcels of land adjacent to each other. One parcel of land abuts the national highway, whereas the other parcel of land is at some distance from the national highway. Can it be said that the land which abuts the national highway, and which is acquired under the National Highways Act, will yield a compensation much lesser than the adjacent land which is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act only because in the former case, an award is by a government servant which cannot be challenged on merits, as opposed to an award made under Part III of the Land Acquisition Act by the reference Court with two appeals in which the merits of the award can be gone into? There can be no doubt that discrimination would be writ large in such cases.

¶134

38. Ultimately, they refer to the judgment of 7 Judges in Nagpur Improvement Trust V. Vithal Rao (1973) 1 SCC 500 on the question of a reasonable classification for the purpose of Legislation. At paragraphs 29 and 30 of Vithal Rao’s case, extracted below, the Bench has stated as follows:

¶135

29. Can classification be made on the basis of the public purpose for the purpose of compensation for which land is acquired? In other words can the Legislature lay down different principles of compensation for lands acquired say for a hospital or a school or a Government building? Can the Legislature say that for a hospital land will be acquired at 50% of the market value, for a school at 60% of the value and for a Government building at 70% of the market value? All three objects are public purposes and as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether it is one public purpose or the other. Article 14 confers an individual right and in order to justify a classification there should be something which justifies a different treatment to this individual right. It seems to us that ordinarily a classification based on the public purpose is not permissible under Article 14 for the purpose of determining compensation. The position is different when the owner of the land himself is the recipient of benefits from an improvement scheme, and the benefit to him is taken into consideration in fixing compensation. Can classification be made on the basis of the authority acquiring the land? In other words can different principles of compensation be laid if the

¶136

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 27 of 38_

¶137

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶138

land is acquired for or by an Improvement Trust or Municipal Corporation or the Government? It seems to us that the answer is in the negative because as far as the owner is concerned it does not matter to him whether the land is acquired by one authority or the other.

¶139

30. It is equally immaterial whether it is one Acquisition Act or another Acquisition Act under which the land is acquired. If the existence of two Acts could enable the State to give one owner different treatment from another equally situated the owner who is discriminated against, can claim the protection of Article 14.

¶140

39. The conclusion in Hakeem’s case was that the appeals of the Project Director were to be dismissed on the ground that the National Highways Authority of India had allowed similarly situated persons to receive compensation at a much higher rate than awarded to other land owners and parity must be maintained in the case of similarly placed persons. They also conclude that they would not be inclined to send the matters back to be re-done afresh in view of the elapse of nearly one decade from the original awards.

¶141

40. The aforesaid decision is fundamental to the decision to be taken on the averments that have been made by both parties.The land owners have placed very great reliance on this judgment. The respondents for their part, would emphasize that, in principle, there was no quarrel on the proposition that parity in compensation has to be maintained. However, it is only by the exercise of discretion under Article 142 that such parity was, in fact, brought into fruition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶142

41. Neither the Constitution not the Judgment in the case of Hakeem (supra), the respondents say, extend such discretion to the High Court. Thus the decision in the case of Hakeem (supra) is distinguishable for the simple reason that it is a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court exercising a discretion which the High Court does not possess.

¶143

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 28 of 38_

¶144

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶145

42. For these reasons, they would submit that the authorities had no power to review the compensation and place the same on par with other similarly placed persons, but ought to have, in keeping with the mandate under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, dismissed the appeals before them.

¶146

43. The conclusion in Hakeem’s case in as follows:

¶147

59. Given the fact that the NH Amendment Act, 1997 has not been challenged before us, we refrain from saying anything more. Suffice it to say that, as has been held in Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, [(1999) 2 SCC 635] (at para 20), even after we declare the law and set aside the High Court judgment on law, we need not interfere with the judgment on facts, if the justice of the case does not require interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

¶148

60. Given the fact that in several similar cases, the NHAI has allowed similarly situated persons to receive compensation at a much higher rate than awarded, and given the law laid down in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao[(1973) 1 SCC 500], we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 in favour of the appellants on the facts of these cases. Also, given the fact that most of the awards in these cases were made 7-10 years ago, it would not, at this distance in time, be fair to send back these cases for a de novo start before the very arbitrator or some other arbitrator not consensually appointed, but appointed by the Central Government. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed on facts with no order as to costs.

¶149

44. We have studied the judgment in Hakeem’s case carefully. The relevant facts are the same as in the present cases. The subject acquisitions have all been done under the same Notifications as in that case. True there will be variations in the finer details such as, the dimensions of the lands acquired, the survey numbers, the exact locations of the lands, the defences put forth by the landowners before the original authorities and the specifics of the valuations itself.

¶150

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 29 of 38_

¶151

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶152

45. However, the authorities who have passed the impugned orders have adverted to the facts in detail, finding rank perversity in the valuations adopted in the quantification of the compensation. No details of any sort have been produced before us by the respondents to indicate, let alone establish, that the original compensation was correct and proper and based on acceptable materials.

¶153

46. On the other hand in Hakeem, the Bench has specifically referred to the methodology adopted by the authorities for valuation, finding the same to be incorrect and inadequate. At the risk of repetition, we once again draw attention to that portion of the judgement in Hakeem’s case extracted at paragraphs 34 and 35 of this order.

¶154

47. The exercise of appellate power in the matters was for the reasons adumbrated in paragraphs 59 and 60 of that judgement extracted supra. Having the benefit of those observations, we believe we would be remiss if we do not apply them to the present cases particularly seeing as the facts and circumstances in the matters are near identical. The observations in Hakeem’s case in regard to the slipshod and incorrect manner of quantification of compensation at the lower levels would equally apply in the present cases as well.

¶155

48. Undoubtedly, the position of law that the contours of intervention/interference in an award are severely circumscribed by the parameters under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, is too well settled now. However the concluding observations in Hakeem’s case make it unambiguously and categorically clear that there has been perversity in the orders of the lower authorities in determining compensation. In a sense, one could say that the original awards of compensation were in conflict with the most basic notions of justice. This position would enable and fortify our decision to dismiss the appeals.

¶156

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 30 of 38_

¶157

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶158

49. That apart, the Supreme Court also declines interference for the reason that the original awards had been passed a decade earlier. In the present cases, the awards have been passed on various dates in 2007, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016 and this position is thus analogous with those appeals. Even for this reason, we decline interference”

¶159

The above observations are self-explanatory. In the instant cases also, the awards were passed on various dates in 2007, 2013, and 2014. The appellant is unable to point out any infirmity in the value adopted by the Principal District Courts or justify the quantification of compensation by the competent authorities and the Arbitrators, which are perverse. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Division Bench of this Court in the above order for dismissing the appeals filed by the National Highways Authority of India would apply to the present appeals also.

¶160

Similarly, another Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the appeal in C.M.A.(MD) No.164 of 2024 filed by the appellant on the ground that the Arbitrator had committed a patent illegality by not following the procedure contemplated under the National Highways Act, 1956. This Court in the said case in paragraph 14.6 held as follows:

¶161

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶162

______________ Page No. 31 of 38_

¶163

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶164

14.6.Even though detailed guiding factors were incorporated in the 3G-(7) of NHAI to determine market value and other Damages, the Arbitrator dismissed the application without any judicial approach on the basis of the document adduced to determine the market value on the side of the claimants. The Arbitrator simply copied the award of competent authority contrary to Section 3 G(7) of the Act. Section 3G(7) of the Act, clearly fixes the detailed obligation, on the part of the arbitrator to determine the amount by taking into consideration the market value of the land on the date of the publication of section 3(A) of the Act, and also providing damages sustained by the persons in acquiring the land and taking possession by the Land Acquisition Officer. If the landowner is compelled to change his residence or place of the business the reasonable expenses if incurred, the same should be properly compensated. This mandatory duty is cast upon both the competent authority as well as the arbitrator. If none of the above procedure is followed, then it is a case of apparent illegality on the part of the arbitrator. His decision suffers from perversity. His method of approach in determining the compensation is against known public policy. In such a situation, in numerous cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the power exercised by the Arbitration Tribunal under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, the extra ordinary situation warranted the Arbitration Tribunal to determine the compensation under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, on the basis of material produced before it by following the precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

¶165

(1) 2024 (2) SCC 375 ; (2) 2018 (11) SCC 328 ; (3) 2022 (3) SCC 237

¶166

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 32 of 38_

¶167

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶168

Therefore, this Court finds no grounds to interfere in the said award under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

¶169

It is also pertinent to mention that both in the judgment in M.Hakeem's case cited supra and the judgment in R.Karuppiah's case cited supra , the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court were dealing with the lands of the persons belonging to the same Villages or adjacent Villages acquired by the appellant for the same project and during the same period of time, by similar notifications.

¶170

Another Division Bench of this Court in judgment in NHAI (National Highways Authority of India), by its Project Director, PIU, Salem-4's case ( C.M.A.No.2763 of 2023 ) cited supra had set aside the order under Section 34 of the Act and remanded it back to the Arbitrator/District Collector to decide afresh. However, in view of the observations made in paragraphs 50 and 60 of the judgment in M.Hakeem's case cited supra , which are extracted in paragraphs 35 and 43 of the judgment of the Division Bench in R.Karuppiah's case cited supra , this Court is not inclined to set aside the order and remit the case

¶171

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 33 of 38_

¶172

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶173

back to the Arbitrators/District Collectors, considering the fact that the awards were passed 10 to 17 years ago. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in NHAI (National Highways Authority of India), by its Project Director, PIU, Salem-4's case ( C.M.A.No.2763 of 2023 ) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the observations of the other Division Bench in the condone delay petitions are on the facts of those cases.

¶174

It is also seen that the appellant was unable to point out any infirmity insofar as the value fixed by the Principal District Courts in respect of the lands acquired. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appeals have to fail and the landowners are entitled to the compensation determined by the Principal District Courts of Madurai and Theni Districts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and this Court finds no grounds to interfere with, under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the orders passed by the Principal District Courts under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

¶175

As far as reference to the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is concerned, as

¶176

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No. 34 of 38_

¶177

C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2019 etc. batch

¶178

on date, the law is that the award cannot be modified. However, even in

¶179

such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Hakeem's case cited supra and this Court did not interfere with the orders passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, as the value fixed by the Arbitrator was based on perverse reasoning. The answer to the reference and any change in the law would only benefit the landowners in these cases. Therefore, adjudication in these appeals need not wait for the answer to the reference made before the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶180

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in some cases, namely C.M.A. (MD) Nos. 468, 431, and 452 of 2024, the interest awarded by the District Courts was at the rate of 15% per annum for the enhanced compensation, whereas in all other cases, only 9% was awarded. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Court is of the view that the enhanced compensation in all cases will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

¶181