S MRUGESAN THROUGH HIS POWER AGENT L KANNAN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION (NH) AND DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER COLLECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these civil revision petitions is made to the orders, dated 07.02.2009, passed in unnumbered I.A.Nos.....of 2008 in Arbitration O.P.Nos. 5718, 5719 of 2008, 92777 & 92778 of 2007, by the District Collector / Arbitrator, Thoothukudi, in his proceedings in Na.Ka.n3/5718/08, n3/5719/07, n3/92777/07 and n3/92778/07 respectively.

(2.) As could be seen from the materials placed on record, the lands belonging to the petitioners had been acquired and accordingly, it is stated that the first respondent had fixed the award, to which the petitioners are entitled to and according to the petitioners, by valuing the properties acquired at a low price, contrary to law and the materials available on record, accordingly, aggrieved over the same, it is found that the petitioners had moved the District Collector, who is the nominated Arbitrator for passing the suitable award and accordingly, in the arbitration original petitions preferred by them respectively, they had sought for passing the award at the rate of Rs. 4.500/- per sq.meter with solatium at 30%, with an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value, from the date of entering to the date of taking possession i.e., 09.01.2004 to 16.07.2005 and to direct the respondents to deposit the enhanced amount with interest at the rate of 9% for the period from entering into the land and thereafter at the rate of 15% with costs. The respondents are found to have opposed the abovesaid arbitration original petitions preferred by the petitioners by filing the counter and contended that the value of the properties acquired had been rightly fixed by the competent Authority, namely, the first respondent herein and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the arbitration original petitions. Pending the abovesaid arbitration original petitions, it is found that the petitioners had moved the amendment applications to amend the arbitration original petitions as detailed in the petitions and with reference to their case, according to them, as there occurred a mistake in the prayer portion instead of the words "from the date of the notification" they have stated that "from the date of entering to the date of taking possession" and also failed to calculate the interest for the aggregate amount, which is a statutory one and also recognized by the Apex Court and accordingly, putting forth the case that the abovesaid mistakes had crept in neither wilfully nor wantonly and only on account of the typographical error and accordingly, sought for the necessary amendment in the arbitration original petitions as prayed for in the amendment applications.

(3.) The respondents resisted the abovesaid amendment applications putting forth the case that the claim of the petitioners seeking enhanced compensation for the lands acquired, from the date of notification to the date of taking possession is incorrect as the possession of the lands is not at all taken even as on date and the question of interest would not arise and the compensation, to which the petitioners are entitled to, would be paid only as per the National Highways Act, 1956 and the solatium of 30% is applicable only to the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it is not applicable to the lands acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 and inasmuch as the lands for which, the enhanced compensation is sought for, had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the solatium of 30% is not permissible under the said Act and accordingly, contending that all the formalities under the National Highways Act, 1956 have been adopted properly without any deviation, prayed for the dismissal of the amendment applications.