A.Sundaraj v. The Arbitrator Cum District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :16.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER A.Sundaraj ... Petitioner(s) in both WPs Vs.

¶1The Arbitrator Cum District, Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶2The Competent Authority And District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition National Highways, Tirunelveli @ Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶3The Project Director Cum DGM (Tech), No.314E, K.P.Road, Near Ayappan Kovil, Parvathipuram, Nagercoil - 629003, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents in both WPs COMMON PRAYER : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on the appeals dated

30.03.2024 and 09.03.2024 filed under Section 3(G)5 of National Highways Act, 1956 by initiating Arbitration Proceedings for re-fixation of compensation, determined, in the Award No.7/2014-9, dated

07.09.2017 and Award No. 5/2015 dated 21.02.2018. For Petitioner :M/s. G.Justin (in both writ petitions) For Respondents :Mr.B.Ramanathan Addl. Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.Su.Srinivasan Standing Counsel for NHAI/R3 (in both WPs) COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass orders on the appeals dated 30.03.2024 and 09.03.2024 filed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, by initiating arbitration proceedings for re-fixation of the compensation determined Award No.7/2014-9, dated

07.09.2017 and Award No. 5/2015 dated 21.02.2018.

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶3The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compensation paid to the petitioner has to be calculated with reference to the date of notification issued under Section 3A of the Act. In the present case, the notification was issued on 09.04.2010. However, at the time of passing the arbitral award, the relevant date was taken as

01.04.2012.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under Section 3G(7)(a), while determining compensation, the competent authority or arbitrator shall take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification. According to him, the compensation ought to have been fixed with reference to 09.04.2010 instead of 01.04.2012.

¶5When this Court questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the fixation of compensation, he fairly submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, received higher compensation on the basis of the determination as on 01.04.2012. If the date had been fixed as

09.04.2010, the compensation payable would have been lesser.

6.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly submitted representations for the very same cause of action. The grievances raised earlier were duly considered and the representations as well as the appeal were disposed of. Accordingly, the compensation was determined for the subject property.

¶7In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The petitioner has admittedly received higher compensation based on the valuation as on 01.04.2012. As such, the question of interfering with the arbitral awards passed by the first respondent does not arise. In view of this, the relief sought in these writ petitions cannot be granted and these writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. (K.SURENDER, J)

16.02.2026 NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No PKN To

¶1The Arbitrator Cum District, Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶2The Competent Authority And District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition National Highways, Tirunelveli @ Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶3The Project Director Cum DGM (Tech), No.314e, K.P.Road, Near Ayappan Kovil, Parvathipuram, Nagercoil - 629003, Kanyakumari District.

K.SURENDER, J. PKN

16.02.2026