The Project Director v. Chan Basha

JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.M.P.Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, learned State Government Pleader.

¶2The present first respondent/original writ petitioner has filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking directions against the third respondent to pay the enhanced compensation amount as per the award passed by the Collector under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order: "5. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also in view of the limited relief sought for, this court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, issues a direction to the 3rd respondent to pay the enhanced compensation determined by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.24519/2016/F2/Arbitration dated 31.08.2020 in respect of the petitioner's land and disburse the compensation to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, liberty is granted to the 2nd respondent to work out his remedy in accordance with Section 3-G(5) of the Act for the purpose of filing application before the Central Government for appointment of arbitrator and for redetermination of compensation as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. No costs."

¶3Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contented that none of the contentions raised by the present appellant was considered by the arbitrator while passing the award. The issue of limitation was subsequently raised and the same has not been addressed by the arbitrator. Other factual aspects were also raised; however, without considering the grounds raised by the present appellant, the award has been passed, awarding an exorbitant compensation amount.

¶4The appellant has filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1996') challenging the said award, but, due to the fact that the officer in-charge to register got changed twice, the application was not registered.

¶5Learned counsel further submits that in fact, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the writ petition is not maintainable. The original petitioner had the liberty to file execution petition.

¶6Learned counsel for the private respondent/original writ petitioner submits that the writ petition to claim payment of the enhanced amount as per the award is maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated

24.07.2018 in W.P.No.1230 of 2018. It is submitted that in respect of the property acquired for the same project earlier, award is passed in the year 2017 and the rate of compensation awarded therein is only awarded to the original writ petitioner/first respondent herein.

¶7It is further submitted that it is the bounden duty of the authorities to deposit the amount as per the award. The appellant has paid the enhanced amount of compensation, as per the arbitral award, in respect of some claimants, but is selectively depriving of the enhanced amount to the original writ petitioner.

¶8We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

¶9No doubt, the original petitioner has a remedy of execution under Section 36 of the Act of 1996.

¶10Be that as it may, according to the present appellant, the challenge to the arbitral award is pending consideration before the concerned District Judge. In view of that, it would not be proper for us to comment upon the merits of the arbitral award. In light thereof, we have not considered the contentions of the respective parties upon the merits of the arbitral award.

¶11The deposit of amount would also be to the advantage of the present appellant, inasmuch as with regard to the amount deposited, further interest would be arrested.

¶12We may appreciate the anxiety of the original petitioner to receive the enhanced compensation amount and at the same time, the grounds raised by the present appellant also will have to be considered by the Court, dealing with an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. Equities will have to be adjusted.

¶13Learned Single Judge had also passed further orders, which in our opinion would be required to be modified. In the light of that, we pass the following order:

(i) The appellant shall deposit 50% of the enhanced compensation amount with the concerned Court within a period of ten weeks from today;

(ii) The original petitioner is at liberty to apply for the withdrawal of the amount, which application shall be considered by the concerned District Judge, on its own merits, and after hearing all parties concerned, appropriate orders shall be passed;

(iii) The present appellant may also seek further orders on the stay petition before the learned District Judge;

(iv) Depending upon the order that may be passed by the learned District Judge on the application of the original petitioner for withdrawal of the amount, further steps may be taken with regard to the amount, if lying in the Court, such as to invest the same in a Nationalised Bank or otherwise.

(v) Considering the huge amount involved, the learned District Judge, with whom the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is pending, may endeavour to decide the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 expeditiously. With these observations and directions, the writ appeals stand disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)

14.02.2024 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No sra To

¶1The Arbitrator & District Collector, Thiruvallur District.

¶2The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), NH 205, No.3&4, Lalbagadhur Sasthiri Street, Periyakuppam Railway Road, Near Thulasi Theatre, Thiruvallur 602 001. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(sra)

14.02.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.02.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and CMP No.3657 of 2024 The Project Director National Highways Authority of India project Implementation Unit-Chennai, "SRI TOWER", 3rd Floor, DP-34(SP), Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. .. Appellant -vs- 1. Chan Basha 2. The Arbitrator & District Collector, Thiruvallur District. 3. The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), NH 205, No.3&4, Lalbagadhur Sasthiri Street, Periyakuppam Railway Road, Near Thulasi Theatre, Thiruvallur 602 001. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.30546 of 2022. For the Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasan For the Respondents : Mr.M.P.Saravanan for R-1 : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Govt. Pleader for RR 2 and 3 * * *