P. Sakthivel and Others vs The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Others

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. C.E. Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Richardson for M/s. P. Wilson Associates for the first respondent and Mr. S. Diwakar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 4.

In this writ petition, the land belonging to the petitioners were acquired for the formation of the Four way laning of roads in NH - 47. The petitioners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and the project has been implemented. The petitioners have claimed enhanced compensation for which purpose they have filed applications before the District Collector, to consider their case and grant enhance compensation. The application appears to have not been considered though other similarly placed persons cases were considered and it is stated that arbitration proceedings are in progress. Since the petitioners were not permitted to participate in the arbitration proceedings, they submitted representations to the second respondent on 30/11/2015. In the said representations, they have stated that the fixation of land value is inadequate. The second respondent, without considering the same, rejected the request of the petitioners on two grounds:--

"(i). Firstly, by stating that the representations said to have been submitted very belatedly; and

(ii). It is stated that under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the claim for enhancement of compensation should be made within a period of three years from the date of passing of an Award."

Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 deals with determination of the amount payable as compensation. Sub-Section 1 of Section 3G of the said Act states that where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.

It is not in dispute that the second respondent is an Arbitrator so appointed to arbitrate the issues relating to claims for enhanced compensation. Statute does not prescribe any time limit within which such an application has to be filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the Act does not provide for any outer limit for any application to be made for claiming the enhanced compensation. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the impugned order stating that the application for enhancement should have been made within a period of three years is not sustainable.

Further, it is stated that the representation of the petitioners said to have been submitted very belatedly. However, it has to be noted that the petitioners representation was given on 30/11/2015 and the same was rejected on 2/12/2015 and it can be safely presumed that proper scrutiny of the records could not have been made especially when vast extent of lands were acquired in the formation of National Highways. In any event, in respect of the applications filed by other land owners, now the arbitration proceedings are in progress. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the second respondent or the National Highways if the petitioners are also permitted to participate in the arbitration proceedings and put forth their submissions, for enhanced compensation.

In the light of the above, the impugned order is held to be not sustainable in law.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the arbitration proceedings and put forth their submissions in support of their claim for enhanced compensation which shall be considered in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.