Sekarreporter1: DD Hospital, situated on the Chennai-Tirupathi highway, has moved Madras HC demanding Rs. 367.40 crore from TN Govt for having used it’s 3,000 bed facility to treat COVID-19 patients from April 1, 2020 to March 1, 2021 at the request of district administration @THChennai https://t.co/7tPz2reDv3 [3/22, 12:40] Sekarreporter1: IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE TIRUVALLUR ARBITRATION O.P. of 2021. Dr.T.D. Naidu, M/aged about 62 years, S/o K.P. Naidu, The Chairman and Managing Trustee, M/s Deendayal Educational and Health Trust and

[3/22, 12:39] Sekarreporter1: DD Hospital, situated on the Chennai-Tirupathi highway, has moved Madras HC demanding Rs. 367.40 crore from TN Govt for having used it’s 3,000 bed facility to treat COVID-19 patients from April 1, 2020 to March 1, 2021 at the request of district administration @THChennai https://t.co/7tPz2reDv3
[3/22, 12:40] Sekarreporter1: IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE TIRUVALLUR

ARBITRATION O.P. of 2021.

Dr.T.D. Naidu, M/aged about 62 years,
S/o K.P. Naidu,
The Chairman and Managing Trustee,
M/s Deendayal Educational and Health Trust and
M/s. D D Medical and Educational Trust
No.61. DD Nagar Bus stop, Ramancheri Revenue Village,
Thiruvallur Taluk and District.
.. Petitioner
Vs.

1. The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit,
“Sri Tower” 3rd Floor, DP-34(SP), industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai-600032.

2. The Special District Revenue officer (LA), NH-205,
No.3&4 Lal Bagadhur Sasthri Street, Periyakuppam Railway Station,
( Near) Thulasi Theatre, Thiruvallur

3. The Collector,
Thiruvallur District
Sole Arbitrator.
R.C.No. 21899-1/2011/F2
(Arbitration award)
….. Respondents.

APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ABRITRATION AND CONCILATION ACT 1996 TO SETASIDE THE AWARD DATED 16.02.2021 PASSED BY THE COLLECTOR, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT

The Petitioner is Dr .T.D. Naidu, S/o .K.P. Naidu, Chairman and Managing Trustee, residing at No.61. DD. Nagar, Ramancheri Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District

The address for service of all notices and process on the above named Petitioner is henceforth that of its counsel Mr.A. SARAVANAN, L.BASKARAN , G.VISWANANTHAN AND K.PURUSHOTHAMAN Advocates having their office at No.102, “Tripti Apartments”, 1st Floor, ‘B’ Block, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

1. The first respondent is the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit, “Sri Tower” 3rd Floor, DP-34(SP), industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai-600032.
.

2. The second respondent is The Special District Revenue officer (LA), NH-205, No.3&4 Lal Bagadhur Sasthri Street, Periyakuppam Railway Station, ( Near) Thulasi Theatre, Thiruvallur.

3. The third respondent Collector, Thiruvallur District Sole Arbitrator. (R.C.No. 21899-1/2011/F2) (Arbitration award)

The address for service of the Respondents are as stated above.

4. The petitioner humbly submit that land situated at Ramanjeri Village in Tiruvallur and District was acquired for widening the National Highways -205 from Alamelumangapuram to Pakkam Village by the Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Thiruvallur in the award proceedings as stated follow;-

In the Award proceedings of Competent Authority and Special District Revenue officer (LA-NH-205) Thiruvallur in Award No. 23 of 2011 dated in 20.09.2011 and in R.C.No.16/2010/UNIT-III dated 21.09.2011.
SL. No Survey No Extent (in Sq.mts)
1) 648/1A2 555
2) 682/1D2 1400
3) 682/2A 300
4) 682/3A 150
5) 693/1C4B 1110
6) 702/3A1B 900
7) 703/1B2 200
8) 652/1B2 1639
9) 652/1C2 109
10) 653/2A2B 1466
11) 654/2A1B 2027
12) 678/1D2 1650
13) 679/1B 3191
14) 682/4A1B 1051
15) 682/4B1B 686
16) 682/4D1B 350
17) 682/6A1B 475
TOTAL 17,259

5. The petitioner humbly submit that the above said properties of the petitioner was thus acquired by the 1st and 2nd respondents.

6. The Petitioner humbly submits that initially the 1st respondent has fixed land value of the above said at Rs. 247/- per Sq.mtr for the acquired land of 17259 Sq mtrs without following the due procedures of law in calculating the Market Value of the above said land.

7. The petitioner submit that aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent fixing the market value of the above stated acquired land at Rs.247/- per Sq. mtr, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the 3rd Respondent. Therefore, the Petitioner was compelled to approach the Arbitrator who had passed orders fixing ridiculously low amount as compensation.

8. The petitioner humbly submit that the 3rd respondent, the sole arbitrator has passed the arbitration Award in R.C.No. 21899-1/2011/F2 dated 16.02.2021 based on the counter and report filed by the 1st and 2nd respondent without considering the due process of law in determining the market value, Solarium and Interest at the rate of 12 % per annum. The 3rd Respondent has passed the above arbitration award in R.C.No. 21899-1/2011/F2 dated 16.02.2021 fixing an amount of Rs. 781/- per Sq Mtr along with the 9% of Interest per annum on the difference amount of land value from the date of taking possession under 3-D till the date of actual deposit thereof, as contemplated under section 3 –H(5) of the NHAI Act,1956.

9. The petitioner humbly submit that As per sub-section (7) of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A has to be taken in R.C. No. 21899-1/2011/F2 into consideration by the arbitrator while determining the amount of compensation for land. In the instant case, the arbitrator has simply endorsed the value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by accepting the report given by the National Highway Authority of India to the effect that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is fair and reasonable and does not deserve any enhancement. No attempt was made by the arbitrator to make an independent assessment of the market value of the land on the date of the notification. The award is patently illegal for this reason and therefore, it is in conflict with public policy. The award is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii)of the Act.
10. The petitioner humbly submit that the Deputy Director of Town and Country planning, Chengalpattu Region , Chengalpattu-I has certified the below land situated at Ramanjeri village that the said land does not fall under any land use classification under Tamil Nadu Town and Country planning Act 1971 and there is not detailed development plan or Master plan earmarked for the below survey Numbers. The land Mentioned in the Letter No.3539/1(2008) N1 Date 12.01.2009 can be used for constructing the D D Hospital 141 Dept & Medical Colleges.
It is also certified that there is no objection in converting the agricultural land into an institutional Zone to Construct a D D Hospital 141 Dept & Medical College Buildings.
It is also certified that land is not required for acquisition and the ;land is not acquired by the state Government for any other purpose and it is purely the Property of the above trust free from all encumbrances and there is no litigation pending before any court or any other authority etc.

11. The Petitioner humbly submit that the above certificate was communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Director of Town and Country planning , Chengalpattu Region, Chengalpattu-I dated 19.1.2001.

12. The petitioner humbly submit that the Village Administrative officer, Department of Revenue, Thiruvallur Taluk and District vide letter dated 10.09.2007 issued a certificate certifying the guideline value per acre at Rs.60,00,000/- per Acre and the Market Value per Acre is 10 to 15 Crore Rupees ( Rupees Ten to Fifteen Crores only)

13. The petitioner humbly submit that the office of the District revenue officer, office of the District Revenue officer , Collector officer , Collector office , Thiruvallur District- 602001 has issued the No objection certificate vide letter No.3539/1(2008)N1 dated : 12.01.2009 including the subject matter of the above arbitration lands from converting the agricultural land into an Institutional Zone to Construct a D D Hospital and D D Medical college in Ramanjeri Revenue Village, Thiruvallur .

14. The petitioner humbly submit that accordingly the petitioner D D Medical College and D D hospital was established by me in the year 2010 and was affiliated to Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University. All over Asia D D Medical College and D D Hospital became one of the best college in short span for its infrastructure and 141 different specialties and the college was having every facility from first aid up to transplant surgery. It is further submitted that D D Medical College and D D Hospital was having various departments like hospital, Health City and health and educational Institute.

15. The petitioner humbly submit that thereafter the D D Medical Hospital was function till today successfully and the 3000 bedded facility of D D Medical College & D D Hospital have been using as Emergency Care Centre with additional 1,000 beds for treating Corana-19 virus patients from 1.04.2020 to 28.02.2021 by the District Administration of Thiruvallur and the Government of Tamil Nadu. The above facts cannot be disputed by the respondents. It is further submitted that to support the contention all the appropriate and relevant document is filed along with this petition and the same may be treated as part and parcel of this petition. It is pertinent to state that the 3rd respondent was used the petitioner hospital D D Medical College and D D Hospital for treating Corana-19 virus patients from 20.03.2020 to 28.02.2021 and the land acquired by the 1st and 2nd respondent was the part and parcel of the D D Medical College and D D Hospital. But the same was not considered by the 3rd respondent while he passed the above award dated 16.02.2021. It is pertinent to state that even the date of the award was not mentioned properly. Hence it is apparent on the face of the record available with the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent not at all applied his mind while passing the impugned award and the same is liable to be set aside.

From the above facts and circumstances, the commercial nature of the land was not considered by the 3rd respondent and wrongly assumed that the acquired land is agricultural land without any basis.

16. The Petitioner humbly submit that the there I no definition for agricultural land in the National Highways Act, 1956. But the definition for the same is available in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013) which is extracted as follows;-

“agricultural land” means land used for the purpose of—
Agriculture or horticulture;
Dairy farming, poultry farming, pisciculture, sericulture, seed farming breeding of livestock or nursery growing medicinal herbs;
Raising of crops, trees, grass or garden produce; and
Land used for the grazing of cattle;

The above acquired land in the subject matter of the Arbitration Award in R.C.No. 21899-1/2011/F2 was converted into institutional zone long before the acquisition proceedings of the respondent and the records pertains to the same is very well available with the 3rd respondent and the this aspect is not at all considered by the 3rd respondent while passing the impugned award and hence the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

17. The petitioner humbly submit that the above said land acquired by an order dated 20.09.2011 passed in Order No.23 of 2011. It is apparent from the above facts that there was an Big Educational Institution namely D D Medical College and D D hospital was fully operational and the said acquired land has been the part and parcel of D D Medical College and D D Hospital which used for the exclusive purposes of the same. Hence the market value was skyrocket high and there was a huge demand for the lands in and around the D D Medical College and D D Hospital and the cost of per square feet of the market value is more than Rs.3500/-.

18. The petitioner humbly submit that there so many multinational namely —————–please enter the names of the companies situated in and around our acquired lands.
19. The Petitioner humbly submit that the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh (2019) dealt with the payment of compensation. It is clearly adjudicated on the constitutional validity of section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (National Highways Act), to the extent it excluded payment of compensation and interest from the provisions of section 30 of the New Land Acquisition Act, in respect of land acquired under the National Highways Act. It should be noted that section 3J of the National Highways Act specifically provides that the New Land Acquisition Act shall not apply to land acquisition undertaken under the National Highways Act. The Supreme Court observed that the compensation paid to a landowner is in consideration of the fact that the landowner might not be willing to part with his land. Further, the value for the land is fixed legislatively and, therefore, the landowner is not even allowed the freedom to negotiate the value of the land to secure the best price for the property to be compulsorily acquired. Thus, compensation is the amount paid in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition.
20. The Petitioner further submit that the court held that there was no valid reason to differentiate between sets of landowners whose lands were being acquired for the purpose of national highways on one hand and landowners whose lands were acquired for other public purposes on the other, as this would be in violation of article 14 of the constitution. This article guarantees to every person the right of equality before the law or the equal protection of laws. The Supreme Court held that compensation and interest payable in accordance with section 30 of the New Land Acquisition Act is payable in the case of acquisitions made under the provisions of the National Highways Act. Significantly, the Supreme Court declared that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared as unconstitutional in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh (2019).
Thus, the Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The section Section 23(1A) and (2) and section 28 is extracted below;-
[(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation. – In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.]
(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
21. The Petitioner humbly submit that the 3rd respondent has failed to determine the compensation by giving 100% escalation every year from 2011 to 2021, calculate solatium of 30% from the total compensation as the concern road is with the State Government and the State Government released the funds for compensation and make the payments accordingly to the petitioner. Hence the award of the 3rd respondent dated 16.02.2021 which was failed to grant solatium and interest as provided in the above section is arbitrary, unsustainable and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

22. The Petitioner humbly that the 3rd respondent has very arbitrarily fixed throwaway market value in his award and demolished the basic concept of democracy and reasonable market values should have been awarded, indemnifying the petitioner’s loss would have been a solace.

23. It is further humbly submitted that in a similar proceeding before the Arbitrator cum District Collector (vide proceedings Rc.No.26321-1/2019/F2/ Arbitration, dated 28.02.2020 Rc.No.26321-3/2019/F2/ Arbitration, dated 28.02.2020) the Arbitrator after considering the guide line value and other factors passed an order in the Ramancheri village and enhanced to Rs.795/- per Sq.Ft., (Rs. 8,554/- per Sq.Mts.) since our property also located in the same village. The above referred order may be considered for us and Compensation may be awarded as Rs.795/- per Sq.Ft. (Rs.8, 554/- per Sq. Mts). And above along with 12% interest up to date.

25. The Petitioner humbly submit that the above said lands have been acquired for widening of an existing national highway NH-205 and therefore, there cannot be automatic deduction of development charges, unless it is established by positive evidence, which is absent in the instant case and therefore, deduction of development charges is not sustainable. To support such contention, the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.R.Nagaraja Shetty vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Another, 2009-5- L.W.64 (SC)

26. The petitioner humbly submit that the respondent may contend that better and broader roads would pave way for development. The question is at whose cost. The petitioner being the dissatisfied land loser on seeing vehicles zipping past in high speed over the newly developed roads is not going to be proud, he would be in a state of resentment having been deprived of his land, denied of adequate compensation and further denied of pursuing further remedies on technical grounds by applying a procedural law and ignoring the substantive law. A welfare state is bound to take note of the interest of the land loser. The present attempt of the respondents , NHAI is to exploit the unequalness in barging power. Fortunate for the respondents , the land losers did not contest the land acquired proceedings. On their part, they as citizens of the country, accepted the project as it was to be in public interest. The terms “public” is not the road user alone, but the person who contributed his land for such public purpose. Therefore, the land losers right to obtain adequate compensation regimes supreme. Such supremacy cannot be culled down on technicalities. The 1st and 2nd respondent attempts to “piggy ride” on the orders of the District Collector which are wholly illegal, devoid of reasons, in violation of the principles of natural justice and suffering from the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

27. The petitioner humbly submit that the Deduction towards development charges cannot be on ipse dixit, but required to be established by positive evidence.

In Nelson Fernandes And Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa And Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the question of development charges. In the said case, lands were acquired for laying a Railway line. It was found that lands which were acquired were adjacent to the land which was already acquired for the same purpose, which fact was not noticed by the Land Acquisition Officer, District Court and the High Court and that the purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while fixing compensation. Similar view was taken in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789.

28. It is further submitted that In C.R.Nagaraja Shetty (supra), the acquisition was for widening of the National Highway. The High Court deducted Rs.25/- per square feet for development charges. On appeal by the land loser, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that when lands are acquired for public purposes like setting up of industries, setting up of housing colonies or other such allied purposes, the acquiring body would be entitled to deduct some amount from the payable compensation on account of development charges, however it has to be established by positive evidence that such development charges are justified. With regard to acquisition of land for widening of the existing National Highway, it was held that land is acquired only for widening of the National Highway, there would, therefore be no question of any such development or any costs thereof. In the said case, there was no evidence placed by the acquiring body before the 3rd respondent that it would incured development charges for the acquired land. With regard to acquisition of land for widening of the existing National Highway, it was held that land is acquired only for widening of the National Highway, there would, therefore be no question of any such development or any costs thereof. In the case on hand , there was no evidence placed by the respondents before the sole arbitrator that it would incur development charges. This decision would come to the aid and assistance of the petitioner. Hence the deduction towards development charges is not sustainable, arbitrary, illegal and same are liable to be set aside.

29. The Petitioner humbly submit that At this juncture, it would be appropriate to state that the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K. Project vs. Mahaboob and Another, where the plight of the land loser was vividly brought out and as to how the district Collectors award meager compensation. The observation in paragraph 8 of the judgment reads thus:-
“8. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land. The land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings. The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. To safeguard the interests of the land loser, the Act requires the Collector to make the award before the land owner is dispossessed. The intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make reasonable offers. They tend to err on the `safer’ side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meager awards force the land loser to seek reference to civil court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the reference courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land loser to the High Court and Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the reference court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the land losers are again driven to courts to initiate time consuming execution process (which also involves considerable expense by way of lawyers fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the land losers seldom get a substantial portion of proper compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after the acquisition.”

30. The Petitioner humbly submit that In Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. T.Adhinarayan Shetty reported in AIR 1959 SC 429, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out the broad methods of valuation to be, opinion of experts, price of purchase of lands possessing similar advantage in bonafide transaction within reasonable time and number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective projects of the lands acquired. The earlier decisions in Tribeni Devi vs. Collector of Ranchi, (1972) 1 SCC 480 and Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 were referred to. Following the above decisions in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. And Other, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 595, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the above decision, while answering the question as to whether the Basic Valuation Register (Guideline Value) would form foundation to determine the market value, held that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides the power to prescribe stamp duty on instruments etc., after referring to the decision in Sagar Cements Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1989) 3 Andh. LT 677 held that the Basic Valuation Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty has no statutory base or force and it cannot be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the 1894 Act. It was further held that evidence of bonafide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent purchaser of the lands acquired or situated near by possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine market value. Thus, it was held that guideline value has no statutory force and cannot form any basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands. The decisions squarely Applying since none of the yard stick laid down by the apex court was not all followed by the 3rd respondent while he passed the impugned award dated 16.02.2021. The above said case is on hand can only lead to the conclusion that the District Collector could not have adopted the guideline value for determining the market value of the land that was acquired. Hence the impugned award passed by the 3rd respondent may be set aside.

31. The Petitioner humbly submit that the K.B.S. Associates private limited , a Registered valuers and panel valuers of the Nationalized banks namely State Bank of India, State Bank of Hyderabad, Union Bank, Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Canara Bank, Bank Of India, Bank of Maharashtra , Punjab National Bank and UCO Bank has done a valuation of the Petitioner Trusts properties situated in Ramencheri Revenue Village which is including the subject matter of the impugned award passed by the 3rd respondent extracted as follows;-
CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SITE;-
1 Classification of locality Commercial/ Industrial Locality
2 Development of Surrounding areas Developing Area
3 Possibility of frequent flooding No
4 Feasibility of the civic amenities like School, Hospital, Bus stop, Markets etc. within a K.K
5 Level of Land with Topographical Condition Leveled Ground
6 Shape of Land More or less Rectangular Shape
7 Type of use to which it could be put Commercial
8 Any usage restriction No.
9 is plot in Town planning approved layout yes
10 corner plot or intermittent plot intermittent plot
11 Road Facilities Available( National highway)
12 Type road available at present Main Road.
13 Width of Road – Is it below 20ft . or more than 20 ft. More than 20 feet
14 Is it a land – locked land No
15 Water Potentiality Available
16 Underground Sewage System Sewerage Treatment Plant provided.
17 Power supply is available in the site Available
18 advantage of the site It is about 12 K.M. away from the Thiruvallur Town and it is facing on the Chennai to Thirupathi National Highway
19 General remarks if any M/s. D D Hospital and Medical College proposed 141 Department. It is Multispecialty Hospital. At the time of Inspection of Hospital Main Building, Medical College building , Lecture theatre Complex, Library Building , Exam Hall Staff Quarters , Doctor Jr and Sr Quarters Faculty quarters , Ladies hostel, Boys Hostel, Nurse Quarters etc were running.

ART-A(VALUATION OF LAND)
1 Size of the plot
North by
South By
East by
West by Single Plot
National Highway
D D Hospital
National Highway-205
D D Hospital Road
2 Total extent of the Plot 6 Acre & 21 Cents plus 21 Acres.
3 prevailing market Value Rs. 2995/- per square feet ( Rs.2995X 261360 Sq.ft )
Rs.78,27,73,200/-
Rs.2995/- X 871200 sq.ft = Rs.2,60,92,44,000/-
4 Guideline Value obtained from the Registrar office ( An evidence thereof enclosed) Rs.2,00,00,000/- per Acre( Rupees Two Crores Only)
5 Assessed /adopted rate of Valuation Rs. 13,04,62,200/- per Acre ( as per Guideline value)
6 Estimated Value of Land
Present Market value Rs. 2995/- per square feet ( Rs.2995X 261360 Sq.ft )
Rs.78,27,73,200/-
Rs.2995/- X 871200 sq.ft = Rs.2,60,92,44,000/-

The Petitioner humbly submit that Mr. B.Ethirajulu Naidu, Approved Valuer and Chartered Engineer and a Panel Valuer for nationalized banks namely had given the Valuation Certificate which is extracted below;-
Valuation Certificate
GENERAL
1 Purpose for which the Valuation made To assess the fair market value of the property
2 a) Approved drawing
b) DTP Approval Submitted Drawings copies .
Submitted All Approval
3 List of Documents produced for perusal i) Xerox Copy of Legal opinion.
ii) Xerox Copy of approved drawings
iii) Xerox Copy of V.A.O., D.R.O Certificates
iv) DTP Approval , Dy Director of Town Planning.
4 name of the owner(s) and his /Their Address (GS) WITH PHONE No. Details of share of each owner. owner M/S. D D Medical and Educational Trust
5 Brief Description of the property Details given in Annexure
6 Location of the property
a) Plot No/ survey No.

b) Door No.
c) T.S No./Village
d) Ward/Taluka
e) Mandal/District Nos. 648/1A, 658, 659, 660/1, 662/1 , 2B,2C,3, 4C, 6A,663/1B, 3A, 3B, 3C2, 682/1A, 1D, 2A, 3A, 683/2, 684/1A, 1C, 685/1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 2, 689/2, 690/4, 5, 691/1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4B, 692/4, 693/1C4, 698/2, & 3A
No.7
Ramancheri Revenue Village
Thiruvallur Taluk
Thiruvallur District
7 Postal Address of the Property D D Hospital and D D Medical College,
run by D D Medical & Educational Trust ,
No.7, D D Nagar Bus Stop,
Chennai- Thirupathi National High way,
Kunavalam Post, Thiruvallur Taluk,
Thiruvallur District, Chennai- 631210
8 City/ Town
Residential Area

Commercial Area

Industrial Area Nearby Thiruvallur Town
Commercial/ Industrial Area
—————-

———

9 Classification of the Area
i) High/ Middle/ Poor
ii) Urban /Semi Urban / Rural
Middle Class
Rural
10 Coming under Corporation limit/ Municipality Limit Panchayat Limit.
11 whether covered under any state/Central/Government/ Enactments( e.g.Urban land Ceiling Act)
or Notified Under agency area/scheduled Area/Cantonment Area

No.
12 In case it is a agricultural Land , any conversion to house Site Plots is contemplated No
13 Boundaries of the Property
North By
South by
East by
West by

National Highway
D D Hospital Road,
National Highway 205
D D Hospital Road.
14 Extent of the Site
6 Acres 21 Cents plus 21 Acres

15 Extent of the Site considered
for Valuation ( least of 14a & 14 b) 6 Acres 21 Cents plus 21 Acres

16 whether occupied by the owner /Tenant if occupied by tenant since how long rent Received per month At the time of Inspection, the Hospital Main Building, Medical College lab building , Lecture theatre Complex, Library Building , Exam Hall Staff Quarters , Doctors Jr and Sr Quarters Faculty quarters , Ladies hostel, Boys Hostel, Nurse Quarters etc were running.

CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SITE;-
1 Classification of locality Commercial/ Industrial Locality
2 Development of Surrounding areas Developing Area
3 Possibility of frequent flooding No
4 Feasibility of the civic amenities like School, Hospital, Bus stop, Markets etc. within a K.K
5 Level of Land with Topographical Condition Leveled Ground
6 Shape of Land More or less Rectangular Shape
7 Type of use to which it could be put Commercial
8 Any usage restriction No.
9 is plot in Town planning approved layout yes
10 corner plot or intermittent plot intermittent plot
11 Road Facilities Available( National highway Road)
12 Type road available at present Main Road.
13 Width of Road – Is it below 20ft . or more than 20 ft. More than 20 feet
14 Is it a land – locked land No
15 Water Potentiality Available
16 Underground Sewage System Sewerage Treatment Plant provided.
17 Power supply is available in the site Available
18 advantage of the site It is about 12 K.M. away from the Thiruvallur Town and it is facing on the Chennai to Thirupathi National Highway
19 General remarks if any M/s. D D Hospital and Medical College proposed 141 Department. It is Multispecialty Hospital. At the time of Inspection the Hospital Main Building, Medical College building , Lecture theatre Complex, Library Building , Exam Hall Staff Quarters , Doctor Jr and Sr Quarters Faculty quarters , Ladies hostel, Boys Hostel, Nurse Quarters etc were running.

ART-A(VALUATION OF LAND)
1 Size of the plot
North by
South By
East by
West by Single Plot
National Highway
D D Hospital
National Highway-205
D D Hospital Road
2 Total extent of the Plot 6 Acre & 21 Cents plus 21 Acres.
3 prevailing market Value Rs. 2995/- per square feet ( Rs.2995X 261360 Sq.ft )
Rs.78,27,73,200/-
Rs.2995/- X 871200 sq.ft = Rs.2,60,92,44,000/-
4 Guideline Value obtained from the Registrar office ( An evidence thereof enclosed) Rs.2,00,00,000/- per Acre( Rupees Two Crores Only)
5 Assessed /adopted rate of Valuation Rs. 13,04,62,200/- per Acre ( as per Guideline value)
6 Estimated Value of Land
Present Market value Rs. 2995/- per square feet ( Rs.2995X 261360 Sq.ft )
Rs.78,27,73,200/-
Rs.2995/- X 871200 sq.ft = Rs.2,60,92,44,000/-

31. The Petitioner state that his site is situated on CTH Road at Ramancheri Revenue village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District in survey No. 648/1A2 and etc., total extent of 17,259 Sq.mts. and approved by DTCP in Ramancheri Revenue village.

32. The petitioner humbly state that the 1st and 2nd respondent acquired the above said land of total 17,259 Sq.Mts., in commercial plot in Survey No.648/1A2 etc., for the purpose of forming NH-205. It is further submitted that that the above said land is classified as a commercial land and it is located on Chennai Tiruvallur National High Road. The Petitioner received the award on 23.02-2021 and this application is filed within time as per section 34(3) of Arbitration Act.

33. The Petitioner submits that aggrieved by the award, this application is filed to set aside the award for the following among other grounds. As such the present application is filed, seeking to set aside the Arbitral Tribunal’s Award dated 16.02.2021 on the following among others;-

GROUNDS
1. The award is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.
2. The award was not passed according to the provisions of the Arbitration Act.
3. The award was passed without following the basic principles of natural justice.
4. The award did not discuss any of the documents submitted by the Petitioner.
5. The Petitioner case was not at all discussed by the Arbitrator
6. The award was passed without following the basic principles of natural justice and award is passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind .

7. It is humbly submitted that initially the respondents has fixed land value at Rs. 247/- per Sq.mtr for the acquired land of 17259 Sq mtrs without following the due procedures of law in calculating the Market Value of the above said land. It is further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme court in many occasions has fixed the guidelines for calculating the market value of the property. But the respondents literally fail to adopt the same and the 3rd Respondent passed the impugned award by simply accepting the counter of the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

8. It is submitted that the sole arbitrator, 3rd respondent erred in passing the impugned arbitration Award in R.C.No. 21899-1/2011/F2 dated 16.02.2021 based on counter filed by the respondents, without considering the due process of law in determining the market value, Solarium and Interest at the rate of 12 % per annum in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Indi passed in Union of India v Tarsem Singh (2019) dealt with the payment of compensation .

9. It is submitted that the 3rd Respondent has passed the above arbitration award in R.C.No. 21899-1/2011/F2 dated 16.02.2021 fixing an amount of Rs. 781/- per Sq meter along with the 9% of Interest per annum on the difference amount of land value from the date of taking possession under 3-D till the date of actual deposit thereof, as contemplated under section 3 –H(5) of the NHAI Act,1956 is arbitrary, unsustainable an illegal and the same is liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court.

10. It is submitted that As per sub-section (7) of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A has to be taken in R.C. No. 21899-1/2011/F2 into consideration by the arbitrator while determining the amount of compensation for land. In the instant case, the arbitrator has simply endorsed the value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer by accepting the report given by the National Highway Authority of India to the effect that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is fair and reasonable and does not deserve any enhancement. No attempt was made by the arbitrator to make an independent assessment of the market value of the land on the date of the notification. The award is patently illegal for this reason and therefore, it is in conflict with public policy. The award is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.

11. It is submitted that the Deputy Director of Town and Country planning, Chengalpattu Region , Chengalpattu-I has certified the subject acquired land situated at Ramanjeri revenue village that the said land does not fall under any land use classification under Tamil Nadu Town and Country planning Act 1971 and there is not detailed development plan or Master plan earmarked for the below survey Numbers. The land Mentioned in the Letter No.3539/1(2008) N1 Date 12.01.2009 can be used for constructing the D D Hospital 141 Dept & Medical Colleges. It is also certified that there is no objection in converting the agricultural land into an institutional Zone to Construct a D D Hospital 141 Dept & Medical College Buildings. It is also certified that land is not required for acquisition and the land is not acquired by the state Government for any other purpose and it is purely the Property of the above trust free from all encumbrances and there is no litigation pending before any court or any other authority etc . The above certificate was communicated to the revenue authorities by the Deputy Director of Town and Country planning, Chengalpattu Region, Chengalpattu-I dated 19.1.2001 which is very well available with the 3rd respondent Authority and the same is not is not at all considered by the 3rd respondent while passing the impugned award.

12. It is submitted that the Village Administrative officer, Department of Revenue, Thiruvallur Taluk and District vide letter dated 10.09.2007 issued a certificate certifying the guideline value per acre at Rs.60,00,000/- per Acre and the Market Value per Acre is 10 to 15 Crore Rupees ( Rupees Ten to Fifteen Crores only) and the same is not considered by the 3rd respondent while passing the impugned award dated 16.02.2021 and the same is liable to be set aside on this ground.

13. It is submitted that the office of the District Revenue officer , Collector office , Thiruvallur District- 602001 has issued the No objection certificate vide letter No.3539/1(2008)N1 dated : 12.01.2009 including the subject matter of the above arbitration lands from converting the agricultural land into an Institutional Zone to Construct a D D Hospital and D D Medical college in Ramanjeri Revenue Village, Thiruvallur which is very well available with the 3rd respondent and the same is not considered by the 3rd Respondent while passing the impugned award and the same is liable to be set aside.

14. It is submitted that the D D Medical College and D D hospital was established by the petitioner in the year 2010 and was affiliated to Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University. All over Asia D D Medical College and D D Hospital became one of the best college in short span for its infrastructure and 141 different specialties and the college was having every facility from first aid up to transplant surgery. It is further submitted that D D Medical College and D D Hospital was having various departments like hospital, Health City and health and educational Institute. The petitioner also made an admission in the academic year 2010-2011 and this point of time the market value of the acquired land much higher than what the rate is fixed by the 3rd respondent. Hence MARKET VALUE of the acquired land to be fixed by considering all this aspect, but the 3rd respondent passed the impugned award by simply accepting the counter of the respondent , hence the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

15. It is submitted that the D D Hospital was function till date successfully and the 3000 bedded facility of D D Medical College & D D Hospital have been using as Emergency Care Centre with additional 1,000 beds for treating Corana-19 virus patients from 1.04.2020 to 28.02.2021 by the District Administration of Thiruvallur and the Government of Tamil Nadu. The above facts cannot be disputed by the respondents. It is further submitted that to support the contention all the appropriate and relevant document is filed along with this petition and the same may be treated as part and parcel of this petition. It is pertinent to state that the 3rd respondent was used the petitioner hospital D D Medical College and D D Hospital for treating Corana-19 virus patients from 20.03.2020 to 28.02.2021 and the land acquired by the 1st and 2nd respondent was the part and parcel of the D D Medical College and D D Hospital and the same was used for the institutional purpose. But the same was not considered by the 3rd respondent while he passed the above award dated 16.02.2021, hence the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

16. It is pertinent to state that even the date of the award was not mentioned properly and it is mentioned as 16.02.2020 instead of 16.02.2021. Hence it is apparent on the face of the award passed by the 3rd respondent that he is not at all applied his mind while passing the impugned award and the same is liable to be set aside.

17. It is humbly submitted that there is no definition for agricultural land in the National Highways Act, 1956. But the definition for the same is available in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013) which is extracted as follows;-

“agricultural land” means land used for the purpose of—
Agriculture or horticulture;
Dairy farming, poultry farming, pisciculture, sericulture, seed farming breeding of livestock or nursery growing medicinal herbs;
Raising of crops, trees, grass or garden produce; and
Land used for the grazing of cattle;

The above acquired land in the subject matter of the Arbitration Award in R.C.No. 21899-1/2011/F2 was converted into institutional zone long before the acquisition proceedings of the respondent and the records pertains to the same is very well available with the 3rd respondent and the this aspect is not at all considered by the 3rd respondent while passing the impugned award and hence the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

18. The petitioner humbly submit that the above said land acquired by an order dated 20.09.2011 passed in Order No.23 of 2011. It is apparent from the facts stated above that there was an Big Educational Institution namely D D Medical College and D D hospital was fully operational and the said acquired land has been the part and parcel of D D Medical College and D D Hospital which used for the exclusive purposes of the Educational Institution. Hence the market value was skyrocket high at that point of time and there was a huge demand for the lands in and around the D D Medical College and D D Hospital and the cost of per square feet of the market value was more than Rs.3500/-. But this aspect was not at all considered by the 3rd respondent while passing the impugned award and fixed an throw away price of Rs. 70/- per square feet after detecting the development charge which is perverse, illegal, arbitrary, patently illegal. Hence the impugned award is liable to set aside on this ground also.
19. It is humbly submitted that the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh (2019) dealt with the payment of compensation. It is clearly adjudicated on the constitutional validity of section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (National Highways Act), to the extent it excluded payment of compensation and interest from the provisions of section 30 of the New Land Acquisition Act, in respect of land acquired under the National Highways Act. It should be noted that section 3J of the National Highways Act specifically provides that the New Land Acquisition Act shall not apply to land acquisition undertaken under the National Highways Act. The Supreme Court observed that the compensation paid to a landowner is in consideration of the fact that the landowner might not be willing to part with his land. Further, the value for the land is fixed legislatively and, therefore, the landowner is not even allowed the freedom to negotiate the value of the land to secure the best price for the property to be compulsorily acquired. Thus, compensation is the amount paid in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition.
20. It is submitted that the Market value is the estimated amount for which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in arm’s length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. According to Supreme Court in the case of Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra v. Union of India (UOI). Hence the impugned award is liable to be set aside on this ground also which literally fails to calculate the market value of the property.
21. It is well settled to set out a market value that the genuine and bona fide sale transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbor hood of the acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the real basis to determine the market value.”

22. it is submitted that Besides the above, the petitioner was entitled to 30% solatium on the market value of the land under Section 23(2) of the Act, 12% on the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of notification issued under the Act to the date of making of the award. On the enhanced market value, the petitioner is entitled for interest under Section 28 of the Act @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of notification for the first year ending and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till the date of tender of compensation. Interest shall also be paid on the solatium and the additional amount in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Vs. UOI reported as 93(2001) DLT 569(SC). But none of the above parameters are followed by the 3rd respondent sole arbitrator which is amounts to ignorance of law by the 3rd respondent.
23. It is submitted that there was no valid reason to differentiate between sets of landowners whose lands were being acquired for the purpose of national highways on one hand and landowners whose lands were acquired for other public purposes on the other, as this would be in violation of article 14 of the constitution. This article guarantees to every person the right of equality before the law or the equal protection of laws. The Supreme Court held that compensation and interest payable in accordance with section 30 of the New Land Acquisition Act is payable in the case of acquisitions made under the provisions of the National Highways Act. Significantly, the Supreme Court declared that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore it was declared as unconstitutional in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Tarsem Singh (2019). But the same not considered by the 3rd respondent sole arbitrator while passing the impugned award which is amounts to ignorance of law. Hence the award is perverse, arbitrary, illegal and against the policy of India. Hence the same is liable to be set aside.
24. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent, sole arbitrator has very arbitrarily fixed throwaway market value in his award and demolished the basic concept of democracy and reasonable market values should have been awarded, indemnifying the petitioner’s loss would have been a solace. Hence the impugned award arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

25. It is further humbly submitted that in a similar proceeding before the Arbitrator cum District Collector (vide proceedings Rc.No.26321-1/2019/F2/ Arbitration, dated 28.02.2020 Rc.No.26321-3/2019/F2/ Arbitration, dated 28.02.2020) the Arbitrator after considering the guide line value and other important factors of the acquired land passed an order in the Ramancheri Revenue village and enhanced to Rs.795/- per Sq.Ft., (Rs. 8,554/- per Sq.Mts.) . There the same yard stick should be applied due to the reason the that our property also located in the same Ramancheri Revenue village which was used for the D D Medical College and D D Hospital Purpose. But the 3rd respondent, sole arbitrator fails to consider the said minimum market value for the petitioner land which is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.
It is submitted that the above said lands have been acquired for widening of an existing National Highway NH-205 and therefore, there cannot be automatic deduction of development charges, unless it is established by positive evidence, which is absent in the instant case and therefore, deduction of development charges is not sustainable and the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.R.Nagaraja Shetty vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Another, 2009-5- L.W.64 (SC). Hence the deduction of the development charge is illegal, arbitrary , perverse and unsustainable. Hence the impugned award passed by the 3rd respondent, sole arbitrator is liable to be set aside.

26. It is submitted that the respondents may contend that better and broader roads would pave way for development. The question is at whose cost. The petitioner being the dissatisfied land loser on seeing vehicles zipping past in high speed over the newly developed roads is not going to be proud, he would be in a state of resentment having been deprived of his land, denied of adequate compensation and further denied of pursuing further remedies on technical grounds by applying a procedural law and ignoring the substantive law. A welfare state is bound to take note of the interest of the land loser. The present attempt of the respondents , NHAI is to exploit the unequalness in barging power. Fortunate for the respondents , the land losers did not contest the land acquired proceedings. On their part, they as citizens of the country, accepted the project as it was to be in public interest. The terms “public” is not the road user alone, but the person who contributed his land for such public purpose. Therefore, the land losers right to obtain adequate compensation regimes supreme. Such supremacy cannot be culled down on technicalities. The 1st and 2nd respondent attempts to “piggy ride” on the orders of the District Collector which are wholly illegal, devoid of reasons, in violation of the principles of natural justice and suffering from the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence the impugned award passed by the 3rd respondent, sole respondent is liable to be set aside.
27. It is submitted that the Deduction towards development charges cannot be on ipse dixit, but required to be established by positive evidence.

“In Nelson Fernandes And Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa And Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the question of development charges. In the said case, lands were acquired for laying a Railway line. It was found that lands which were acquired were adjacent to the land which was already acquired for the same purpose, which fact was not noticed by the Land Acquisition Officer, District Court and the High Court and that the purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while fixing compensation. Similar view was taken in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789. Hence the deduction towards development charges is not sustainable, arbitrary, illegal and the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

28. It is further submitted that In C.R.Nagaraja Shetty (supra), the acquisition was for widening of the National Highway. The High Court deducted Rs.25/- per square feet for development charges. On appeal by the land loser, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that when lands are acquired for public purposes like setting up of industries, setting up of housing colonies or other such allied purposes, the acquiring body would be entitled to deduct some amount from the payable compensation on account of development charges, however it has to be established by positive evidence that such development charges are justified. With regard to acquisition of land for widening of the existing National Highway, it was held that land is acquired only for widening of the National Highway, there would, therefore be no question of any such development or any costs thereof. In the said case, there was no evidence placed by the acquiring body before the 3rd respondent that it would incurred development charges for the acquired land. With regard to acquisition of land for widening of the existing National Highway, it was held that land is acquired only for widening of the National Highway, there would, therefore be no question of any such development or any costs thereof. In the case on hand , there was no evidence placed by the respondents before the sole arbitrator that it incurred development charges. This decision would come to the aid and assistance of the petitioner. Hence the deduction towards development charges is not sustainable, arbitrary, illegal and the impugned award is liable to be set aside.
29. It is submitted that it would be appropriate to state that the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K. Project vs. Mahaboob and Another, where the plight of the land loser was vividly brought out and as to how the district Collectors award meager compensation. The observation in paragraph 8 of the judgment reads thus:-
“8. Statistics show that most of the acquisitions relate to lands held by small farmers, whose livelihood depends upon the acquired land. The land is taken purportedly in accordance with law by resorting to acquisition proceedings. The Collector (LAO) is supposed to offer a fair compensation by taking all relevant circumstances relating to market value into account. To safeguard the interests of the land loser, the Act requires the Collector to make the award before the land owner is dispossessed. The intention is that the land loser will immediately be able to draw compensation and purchase some other suitable land or make appropriate arrangements for his livelihood. But in practice the Collectors (LAOs) seldom make reasonable offers. They tend to err on the `safer’ side and invariably assess very low compensation. Such meager awards force the land loser to seek reference to civil court for increase in compensation in regard to almost every award made by the LAO. In fact, many a time, even the reference courts are conservative in estimating the market value and it requires further appeals by the land loser to the High Court and Supreme Court to get just compensation for the land. We can take judicial notice of the fact that in several States the awards of the reference court or the judgments of the High Court and this Court increasing the compensation, are not complied with and the land losers are again driven to courts to initiate time consuming execution process (which also involves considerable expense by way of lawyers fee) to recover what is justly due. Resultantly the land losers seldom get a substantial portion of proper compensation for their land in one lump sum immediately after the acquisition.” The case of the petitioner that how dragged to pillar to post and post pillar. Hence the impugned award which is patently illegal and against the policy of India may be set aside.

30. It is submitted that In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. T.Adhinarayan Shetty reported in AIR 1959 SC 429, the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out the broad methods of valuation to be, opinion of experts, price of purchase of lands possessing similar advantage in bonafide transaction within reasonable time and number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective projects of the lands acquired. The earlier decisions in Tribeni Devi vs. Collector of Ranchi, (1972) 1 SCC 480 and Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 were referred to. Following the above decisions in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. And Other, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 595, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the above decision, while answering the question as to whether the Basic Valuation Register (Guideline Value) would form foundation to determine the market value, held that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 provides the power to prescribe stamp duty on instruments etc., after referring to the decision in Sagar Cements Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1989) 3 Andh. LT 677 held that the Basic Valuation Register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty has no statutory base or force and it cannot be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the 1894 Act. It was further held that evidence of bonafide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent purchaser of the lands acquired or situated near by possessing same or similar advantageous features would furnish basis to determine market value. Thus, it was held that guideline value has no statutory force and cannot form any basis to determine the market value of the acquired lands. The decisions squarely Applying since none of the yard stick laid down by the apex court was not all followed by the 3rd respondent, sole arbitrator while he was passing the impugned award dated 16.02.2021. The above said case is on hand can only lead to the conclusion that the District Collector could not have adopted the guideline value for determining the market value of the land that was acquired. Hence the impugned award passed by the 3rd respondent may be set aside.

31. It is submitted that the K.B.S. Associates private limited , a Registered valuers and panel valuers of the Nationalized banks namely State Bank of India, State Bank of Hyderabad, Union Bank, Indian Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Canara Bank, Bank Of India, Bank of Maharashtra , Punjab National Bank and UCO Bank has done a valuation of the Petitioner Trusts properties situated in Ramencheri Revenue Village which is including the subject matter of the impugned award passed by the 3rd respondent extracted as follows;-
ART-A(VALUATION OF LAND)
1 Size of the plot
North by
South By
East by
West by Single Plot
National Highway
D D Hospital
National Highway-205
D D Hospital Road
2 Total extent of the Plot 6 Acre & 21 Cents plus 21 Acres.
3 prevailing market Value Rs. 2995/- per square feet ( Rs.2995X 261360 Sq.ft )
Rs.78,27,73,200/-
Rs.2995/- X 871200 sq.ft = Rs.2,60,92,44,000/-
4 Guideline Value obtained from the Registrar office ( An evidence thereof enclosed) Rs.2,00,00,000/- per Acre( Rupees Two Crores Only)
5 Assessed /adopted rate of Valuation Rs. 13,04,62,200/- per Acre ( as per Guideline value)
6 Estimated Value of Land
Present Market value Rs. 2995/- per square feet ( Rs.2995X 261360 Sq.ft )
Rs.78,27,73,200/-
Rs.2995/- X 871200 sq.ft = Rs.2,60,92,44,000/-

Hence it is apparent from the above certificate that one acre which is 43560 sq. The acquired land is 17259 sq.mtrs which is 185774.33 sq.feets. Hence the minimum market value of the acquired land definitely would fetch Rs.2995/- per sq.feet. But the said fact was not at all considered by the 3rd respondent, sole respondent. Hence the impugned award dated 16.02.2021 is liable to be set aside.

32. It is submitted that Mr. B.Ethirajulu Naidu, Approved Valuer and Chartered Engineer and a Panel Valuer for nationalized banks namely had given the Valuation Certificate which is extracted below;-
ART-A(VALUATION OF LAND)
1 Size of the plot
North by
South By
East by
West by Single Plot
National Highway
D D Hospital
National Highway-205
D D Hospital Road
2 Total extent of the Plot 6 Acre & 21 Cents plus 21 Acres.
3 prevailing market Value Rs. 2995/- per square feet ( Rs.2995X 261360 Sq.ft )
Rs.78,27,73,200/-
Rs.2995/- X 871200 sq.ft = Rs.2,60,92,44,000/-
4 Guideline Value obtained from the Registrar office ( An evidence thereof enclosed) Rs.2,00,00,000/- per Acre( Rupees Two Crores Only)
5 Assessed /adopted rate of Valuation Rs. 13,04,62,200/- per Acre ( as per Guideline value)
6 Estimated Value of Land
Present Market value Rs. 2995/- per square feet ( Rs.2995X 261360 Sq.ft )
Rs.78,27,73,200/-
Rs.2995/- X 871200 sq.ft = Rs.2,60,92,44,000/-

Hence it is apparent from the above certificate that one acre which is 43560 sq. The acquired land is 17259 sq.mtrs which is 185774.33 sq.feets. Hence the minimum market value of the acquired land definitely would fetch Rs.2995/- per sq. feet. But the said fact was not at all considered by the 3rd respondent, sole respondent

From the above facts and circumstances of the case that the 3rd Respondent, sole arbitrator, without following any of the above stated yardstick , guidelines and procedure, has fixed an amount of Rs.72/- per square feet after deducting the development charge is perverse, illegal, arbitrary, against the policy of India, patently illegal and also amounts to ignorance of law. Hence the impugned award dated 16.02.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent sole arbitrator is liable to be set aside.

33. It is submitted that the petitioner site is situated on CTH Road at Ramancheri Revenue village, Tiruvallur Taluk and District in survey No. 648/1A2 and etc., total extent of 17,259 Sq.mts. and the same is commercial land which is entitled for better market value. But the 3rd respondent, sole arbitrator fixed an throw away price which is arbitrary, illegal, perverse and unsustainable. Hence the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

34. The Petitioner humbly submit that the cause of action for the above original Petition arose at Chennai within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court when the award was passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal by the order dated 16.02.2021

35. The subject matter of the property in respect of the Arbitrator award dated 16.02.2021 is lying within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and Hence this petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court.

36. The Petitioner pays a maximum court fees Rs.5,000/- under Schedule II Article IV of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

37. The petitioner humbly submit that the petitioner received the above impugned award dated 16.02.2021 only on 23.02.2021 and the present application is filed very well within the limitation as prescribed by the Act.

38) The Petitioner therefore prays for a Judgment and Decree order against the respondents :-

a) By Setting aside the Arbitral Award dated 16.02.2021 the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal herein, limited only in so far as the ;-
b) Awarding costs of the present petition ; and

c) Granting such further or other reliefs as may be deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Advocate for the Petitioner Petitioner.
VERIFICATION
I, Dr.T.D. Naidu, M/aged about 62 years, S/o K.P. Naidu, the Chair

You may also like...