CHELLAIAH (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to these appeals are interlinked and hence, this common order is passed.

(2.) These appeals are filed by invoking Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(3.) In C.M.A(MD)No.1760 of 2013, the legal representatives of the claimant, namely P.Chelliah, are the appellants and Chelliah was the owner of the lands in T.S.Nos.383/7B1, 383/8B1 and 383/10B1 at Tuvarankurichi Village, Manapparai Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District. The first respondent had acquired 248 sq. meters of land in S.F.Nos.383/7B1, 302 sq. meters in S.F.No.383/10B1 and it was acquired for laying four lane road by the National Highways Authority of India. The first respondent, namely, the Competent Authority cum Special District Revenue Officer, National Highways 45-B (Land Acquisition) Unit II, Pon Nagar, Trichy 1, had fixed the market value at Rs.11.72 sq.meter for nanja land and Rs.8.57 sq.meter for punja land. It is the claim of the claimant that the acquired land is situate adjoining the developing real estate area and nearby the land, very many amenities are available like bus stand, shops, petrol bunks etc., and is having a potential value and at the time of acquiring the property, the market value, as per the guideline fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, works out to Rs.3,250/- per sq.meter. The claimant has also averred that in the acquired land, 36 yielding coconut trees and 8 grown up saplings and 5 margosa trees are there and therefore, compensation is to be fixed at Rs.1,800/- per coconut tree including the grown up saplings for an average yield period of 40 years and however, though the trees had been cut and removed by the third respondent, no compensation has been awarded and without considering the same, the first respondent/competent authority, has fixed a very low value and therefore, filed an application under Section 3(G)(7) of the National Highways Act, 1956. (ii) The second respondent/Arbitrator vide award, dated 10.10.2009 has upheld the compensation determined by the first respondent/competent authority and dismissed the petition. Therefore, the claimant filed a petition in Arbitration O.P.No.1 of 2010 before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, by invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Judge, taking note of the legal position as to the scope of interference under Section 34(1), has dismissed the said O.P vide impugned award, dated 204.2013 and challenging the legality of the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.