Disposed

K.Thangamuthu Gounder (Died) v. the Project Director

Madras HC11 Jul 2024CRP/471/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought enhancement of land acquisition arbitration compensation to Rs.5,000 per sq.ft. via Section 34 proceedings. The Court held Section 34 permits only setting aside an award; petitioners agreed to amend the prayer to seek setting aside the award. Papers were permitted to be re-presented after amendment.

What did the court decide?

Registry to return original papers; petitioners may amend prayer to set aside the award and re-present before Principal District Court, Erode; no costs.

K.Thangamuthu Gounder (Died) Vs the Project Director — Arbitration | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.471 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.471 of 2023

¶7

K.Thangamuthu Gounder (Died)

¶8

1.T.Subramaniam

2.T.Palanisamy

3.Jayalakshmi

... Petitioners

1.The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit (NS), D.No.212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony, Narasothipatti, Salem – 636 004.

¶14

2.The Competent Authority and The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.

¶15

3.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.(PD).No.471 of 2023

¶20

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Docket Order in CFR No.6641 of 2017 in Unnumbered A.O.P.No. of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, dated 29.06.2018.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Ramaraj For R1 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan For R2 and R3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the learned

¶24

Principal District Judge, Erode in CFR No.6641 of 2017 in unnumbered A.O.P.No. of 2017, dated 29.06.2018.

¶25

A.O.P.No. of 2017 has been filed challenging the award of the Arbitrator namely District Collector, Erode District for the lands acquired in Kandampalayam Village, Erode Taluk and District.

¶26

A look at the prayer in A.O.P.No. of 2017 shows that the civil revision petitioners wanted to enhance the compensation awarded by the

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.(PD).No.471 of 2023

¶30

Arbitral Tribunal to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. Thereafter, the case papers had been returned by the Principal District Judge, Erode on several occasions. It is now settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court that the Power under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is only available to set aside the award and there is no power in the Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to enhance the compensation or substitute its reasons for the award.

¶31

When this factum was pointed to Mr.C.Ramaraj, who is representing the civil revision petitioners, he states that he will substitute the prayer (a) found in the arbitration original petition with a prayer to set aside the impugned award.

¶32

In the light of the subsequent willingness expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners to substitute the prayer, I am inclined to pass the following order:-

¶33

(i) If the petitioners confine/limit their prayer only to set aside the award passed by the 3^rd respondent/Arbitrator, then the question of paying ad valorem court fee will not arise.

¶34

3/6

¶35

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

¶36

C.R.P.(PD).No.471 of 2023

¶37

(ii) The original papers have been filed before this Court in this revision. The

¶38

Registry is directed to return the original petition to the learned counsel

¶39

for the petitioners, after obtaining usual endorsement.

¶40

(iii) The petitioners are permitted to represent the papers before the learned

¶41

Principal District Court, Erode after making the necessary amendment to the prayer.

¶42

This view that is taken by me is in line with the view taken by my

¶43

brother Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.SOUNTHAR in C.R.P.No.1373 of 2021, dated 20.02.2024.

¶44

In view of the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands

¶45

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

11.07.2024 (4/9)

¶47

Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm

¶48

4/6

¶49

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

¶50

C.R.P.(PD).No.471 of 2023

¶51

¶52

1.The Principal District Court, Erode.

¶53

2.The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit (NS), D.No.212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony, Narasothipatti, Salem – 636 004.

¶54

3.The Competent Authority and The District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode.

¶55

4.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

¶56

5/6

¶57

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

¶58

C.R.P.(PD).No.471 of 2023

¶59

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶60

¶61

C.R.P.(PD).No.471 of 2023

¶62

11.07.2024 (4/9)

¶63

6/6

¶64

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

K.Thangamuthu Gounder (Died) v. the Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Thangamuthu Gounder (Died) 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arunapriyanka Vs G.Nandhakumar

S.Savithri Vs R.Padmavathy

Chinna Rangappa Vs Ramu @ Raman

S.Gunasekar Vs the Project Director

C.Periyasamy Vs the Project Director

S.Gunasekar Vs the Project Director