MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court suggested that the union government, which is the constitutional guardian of those whose lands were acquired for development work, must consider appointing a retired high court judge as an arbitrator to determine the compensation fixed for land acquisition by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
The division bench was hearing an appeal filed by the project director of National Highway Authority (No 45 B) of NHAI against SK Surendran and the district revenue officer (competent authority) for land acquisition in Madurai district, seeking to set aside the compensation awarded by the principal district judge of Madurai in 2019.
A division bench of Justices V Bhavani Subbaroyan and KK Ramakrishnan said the collector, who is the arbitrator to determine such compensation, requires time as the entire process of determining the compensation is more like exercise of the judicial function as a ‘persona designata’.
The collector acts in various capacities and has over 30 legislations. As the collector is also the chief district protocol officer, they must work in tandem with ministers, and bear the responsibility during natural calamities, communal clashes and law and order issues, among others.
With such heavy workload, it is unfair to expect the collector to determine a fair compensation, and may result in miscarriage of justice at times. In many cases, collectors have dismissed the ‘land losers’ arbitration proceedings by copying the original order of district revenue officer/competent authority. “Otherwise, let them follow the scheme of reference to determine the compensation mentioned in the Tamil Nadu Highways Act,” the court said.
The department of road, transport and highways issued a notification in 2004 for acquisition of 4,450 sq m of dry land belonging to many, including Surendran, who owned lands along the Madurai-Trichy national highway in Elanthaikulam village of Madurai district for expanding and laying a four-way road.
The DRO/competent authority fixed compensation. Unsatisfied with the compensation, they approached the district collector and sought an enhanced compensation but their application was dismissed. They approached the principal district judge (Arbitration Tribunal), who partly accepted the petition and directed to enhance the compensation.
NHAI’s counsel submitted that the Arbitration Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the compensation and modify the same. Moreover, the judge had committed an error in fixing the market value and modifying the arbitration passed by the arbitrator. The judge must remand the matter back for the arbitrator to determine compensation, the counsel stated.
The court refused to accept NHAI’s arguments that the tribunal committed error in determining compensation without remitting the matter back to the arbitrator. The arbitrator has not correctly considered the market value, but the tribunal had. Based on other considerations, the court granted 10% additional compensation of the enhanced market value from Rs 27.03 lakh to Rs 27.94 lakh.