Justus .G.Y Vs The District Collector

The Competent Authority And Special District Revenue Officer (LA-NH), Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the Appeal of petitioner dated on 30.06.2018 and the consequential reminder on 05.08.2020 by reconsidering the value of petitioner land in Re.Sy.No.689/12 of Vadasery Village, in par with adjacent land value and to add multiplication of 1.25 and also to grant 100 percent solatium with 15 percent interest per annum.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr. K.P.Narayanakumar For Respondents :Mr.P.Subbaraj Spl. Government Pleader for R1 and R3 M/s.P.Karthick for R2

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.2733 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner dated 30.06.2018 and the consequential reminder dated 05.08.2020, by reconsidering the value of the petitioner’s land in Re.Sy. No. 689/12 of Vadasery Village in parity with the value of the adjacent lands and by applying a multiplication factor of 1.25 and further to grant 100% solatium with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

¶19

2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

The petitioner does not dispute that an arbitral award was passed by the first respondent/District Collector in respect of the acquired land. However, the compensation awarded during the arbitral proceedings is stated to be meagre. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the very same first respondent/District Collector seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded under the arbitral award.

¶21

Once an arbitral award is passed, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to approach the competent civil court under Section

¶22

2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.2733 of 2024

¶25

34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and thereafter to avail the appellate remedy under Section 37 of the said Act before the High Court. The petitioner now submits that, since a representation has been made, it is incumbent upon the first respondent to dispose of the said representation. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that, once the District Collector has passed the arbitral award, he has no jurisdiction to change his own arbitral award. Therefore, the question of considering the representation does not arise.

¶26