Supreme Court – Daily Orders
S. Jayalakshmi vs The Special District Revenue Officer on 7 January, 2025
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.192 of 2025
(arising out of SLP (C) NO. 23342/2022)
S. JAYALAKSHMI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER & ORS. Respondent(s)
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO.193 of 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 23355/2022)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are against the judgment of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in C.M.A Nos. 2267 and 2266 of 2019 dated
28.09.2021, by which the High Court allowed the Section 37
appeal(s) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 19961 arising
out of the order of the Principal District Judge, Vellore under
Section 34 of the Act, modifying the arbitral award dated
19.11.2009 under the National Highways Act, 19562.
3. The short facts, to the extent that they are relevant for
disposing these appeals are that the Appellant’s lands were
acquired under the Highways Act under a notification issued under
Section 3A(1) of the Act on 05.04.2022. The acquisition proceedings
led to passing of an award dated 06.06.2005 as per which
compensation at the rate of Rs. 355.21 per sq.mtr was granted. In
Signature Not Verified
the proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 3G(5) of
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
Date: 2025.01.20
17:02:06 IST
the
Reason:
Highways Act, the arbitrator enhanced the compensation and
1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Highways Act’.
2
granted an amount of Rs. 495 per sq.mtr by award dated 19.11.2009.
The Appellant challenged the award by filing an application under
Section 34 of the Act which came to be allowed by modifying the
award and enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4500 per sq.mtr, along
with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
4. Questioning the order passed by the District Judge under
Section 34, the Special District Revenue Officer, the competent
authority filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Act before the
High Court.
5. During the pendency of the appeal on 20.07.2021, this Court
delivered its judgment in the case of “Project Director, National
Highways No. 45 E and 220, National Highways Authority of India vs.
M. Hakeem & Another”3 holding that the jurisdiction of the Courts
under Sections 34 and 37 will not extend to modifying an arbitral
award.
6. By the order impugned before us, following the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the above referred M. Hakeem’s case (supra), High
Court allowed the Section 37 appeal and set aside the order passed
by the Principal District Judge, Vellore under Section 34.
7. This is how the appellant(s) are before us.
8. It is true that this Court in M. Hakeem’s case (supra) has
held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 and 37,
courts cannot modify an arbitral award. However, while allowing the
appeal, in the following paragraphs, this court exercised its
discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution in not interfering
with the grant of compensation in favour of the Respondents. The
3 (2021) 9 SCC 1.
3
relevant portion of the order passed by this Court is as under;
“59. Given the fact that the NH Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997
has not been challenged before us, we refrain from saying
anything more. Suffice it is say that, as has been held in
“Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad” (at para 20), even
after we declare the law and set aside the High Court
judgment on law, we need not interfere with the judgment on
facts, if the justice of the case does not require
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
60. Given the fact that in several similar cases, the
NHAI has allowed similarly situated persons to receive
compensation at a much higher rate than awarded, and
given the law laid down in Nagpur Improvement Trust, we
decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 in
favour of the appellants on the facts of these cases.
Also, given the fact thatt most of the awards in these
cases were made 7-10 years ago, it would not, at this
distance in time, be fair to send back these cases for a
de novo start before the very arbitrator or some other
arbitrator not consensually appointed, but appointed by
the Central Government, The appeals are, therefore,
dismissed on facts with no order as to costs.”
9. There is no doubt about the fact that the acquisition with
which we are concerned in the present proceedings and the
acquisition that fell for consideration in M. Hakeem’s case (supra)
is one and the same. While this Court laid down the law by holding
that an arbitral award cannot be modified, the High Court had to
naturally follow the decision of this court. At the same time, the
High Court could not have exercised the discretion which the
Supreme Court exercised in granting the same compensation to the
Appellant as was granted to the Respondents in M. Hakeem’s case
(supra). To this extent, the High Court is correct in following the
judgment of this Court in M. Hakeem’s case (supra).
10. However, in order to maintain parity and grant to the
Appellant(s) the same benefits as were extended to similarly placed
claimants in M. Hakeem’s case (supra), we deem it appropriate to
4
exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
to direct that the Appellant(s) shall be paid the same compensation
as was granted by the Principal District Judge, Vellore.
11. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeals and in
modification of the order passed by the High Court, direct that the
Appellant(s) shall be granted the compensation as determined by the
Principal District Judge, Vellore in A.O.P. Nos. 03 and 02 of 2010
with all consequential benefits.
12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………J
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
………………………J
(MANOJ MISRA)
NEW DELHI
JANUARY,07, 2025
5
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.12 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23342/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-09-2021
in CMA No. 2267/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
S. JAYALAKSHMI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 23355/2022 (XII)
Date : 07-01-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. S. Mahadevan, Adv.
Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
Mr. R. Rangarajan, Adv.
Mr. Aravind Gopinathan, Adv.
Mr. Punit Manoj Agarwwal, Adv.
Ms. Kirti Leela Ratnam, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. K Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D.kumanan, AOR
Ms. Deepa S, Adv.
Mr. Sheikh F Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep S. Ladda, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR
Mr. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
6
2. The Civil Appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KANCHAN CHOUHAN) (NIDHI WASON) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Original Signed Order is placed on the file.]