The Project Director Vs S.Velammal (Died), 1) Sivalingam

The Project Director, National Highways No.45-B, National Highways Authority of India having his office at Old No.6, New No.44, 1^st Floor, IIIrd Main Road, Pon Nagar, Trichy.

¶10

Presently at Door No.39, 3^rd Cross Road, Kalyana Sundaram Nagar, Karumandapam, Trichy – 620 001. ... Appellant / 2^nd Respondent / Beneficiary

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.Sivalingam ... 1^st Respondent / Petitioner / Applicant

¶13

1/7

¶14

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

¶15

Arb Appeal(MD)No.44 of 2025

¶16

2.Pandi Mahalakshmi ... 2^nd Respondent / Petitioner / Applicant 3.G.Meenambal ... 3^rd Respondent / Petitioner / Applicant 4.G.Bahyalakshmi ... 4^th Respondent / Petitioner / Applicant 5.A.Preethi Lakshmi ... 5^th Respondent / Petitioner / Applicant 6.S.Sivasnakari ... 6^th Respondent / Petitioner / Applicant 7.R.Sharmila ... 7^th Respondent / Petitioner / Applicant 8.The District Revenue Officer / Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, (National Highway – 45B), Collectorate Buildings, Madurai – 625 020. ... 8^th Respondent / 1^st Respondent / Competent Authority

¶17

Prayer: Arbitration Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to call for the record and set aside the order made in Arbitration.O.P.No.41 of 2015 dated 26.02.2024 on the Principal District Judge, Madurai and allow this Appeal.

¶18

2/7

¶19

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

¶20

Arb Appeal(MD)No.44 of 2025

¶21

For Appellant : Mr.P.Karthick

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindaraj for R.1 to R.7

¶23

Ms.P.B.Ahamad Yasmin Parvin Government Advocate for R.8

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

2.The lands belonging to the private respondents herein were acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The competent authority determined the amount payable as compensation. Since the said amount so determined by the competent authority was not acceptable to the land owners, they filed applications under Section 3G(5) of the Act before the District Collector. The District Collector passed arbitral awards quantifying the compensation payable to the land owners. Not satisfied with the same, the persons whose lands were acquired, filed petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By the orders impugned in these appeals, the

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

Arb Appeal(MD)No.44 of 2025

¶31

learned District Judges chose to enhance the compensation amount. Questioning the same, this arbitration appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Act by the NHAI.

¶32

3.The only question that calls for determination is whether the District Judge could have enhanced the compensation amount and thus modified the arbitral award while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. We are conscious that the issue is presently pending reference before the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in Gayathri Balasamy Vs M/s.ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited case. Orders have been reserved. But the position that prevailed on the date when the impugned orders under Section 34 was passed was that modification cannot be made.

¶33

4.We, therefore, hold that the impugned order is clearly bad in law. We are therefore inclined to set aside the same and we accordingly set aside the same.

¶34

5.The learned counsel appearing for the NHAI, on instructions from NHAI, submitted that this Court may adopt the very same approach

¶35

4/7

¶36

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

¶37

Arb Appeal(MD)No.44 of 2025

¶38

adopted in C.M.A.No.2763 of 2023 dated 15.12.2023 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. He has no objection for setting aside the arbitral award impugned in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act. Accordingly, the award passed by the District Collector is also set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the arbitrator (jurisdictional District Collectors). The arbitrator shall conclude the proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The erstwhile land owners are entitled to plead that the arbitrator shall apply the principle of parity. NHAI is also entitled to place materials in support of their contention that the compensation amount does not deserve to be enhanced as claimed by the erstwhile land owners. In the event of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while answering the reference in Gayathri Balasamy holding that the District Court is entitled to modify the awards in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the respondents herein are given liberty to reopen these proceedings. If any application is filed, we make it clear that this Arbitration Appeal will stands reopened and the matter will be heard on merits.

¶39

5/7

¶40

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

¶41

Arb Appeal(MD)No.44 of 2025

¶42

5.This Arbitration Appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be

¶43

no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

¶44

closed.