The petitioners are persons whose lands have been acquired for the improvement and widening of the Palakkad -Thrissur National Highway, NH-47. The third respondent passed an Award as LAC No. 17/2010 under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the first petitioner has approached the Arbitrator and District Collector, Palakkad seeking enhancement of compensation. The application was considered and by Exhibit P1, enhanced compensation has been awarded. Exhibit P1 is dated 25.10.2011. 2. The present complaint of the petitioners is that, the compensation awarded by Exhibit P1 is meagre and does not bear any relation to the actual market value of land prevailing in the locality. The 4th respondent had conducted the arbitration proceedings in gross violation of the principles governing the assessment of compensation by an Arbitrator. It is also alleged that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956 as well as the principles laid down by the various decisions under the said statute have been violated. Instead of passing an Award, an order has been passed, as evidenced by Exhibit P1. No copy of the Award duly signed by the Arbitrator was furnished to the petitioners thereby disentitling them from challenging the Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1976. Since the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in the matter, it is prayed that, an independent Arbitrator be appointed to assess the actual market value of the property.
3. The contentions of the petitioners are opposed by Advocate Thomas Antony who appears for the first respondent as well as the Government Pleader who appears for respondents 2, 3 and 4. The contention that a copy of the Award had not been served on the petitioners is stoutly refuted by the counsel for the first respondent. According to the counsel, a copy of the Award had been served on the first petitioner, who alone was the petitioner in Exhibit P1, by registered post, which has been acknowledged receipt of on 19.11.2011. Thereafter, on 05.03.2012 a cheque for the enhanced amount was given to the first petitioner. The said cheque was encashed on 19.03.2012 and the amount was received by the party. It is long thereafter that the present writ petition had been filed. According to the learned Government Pleader also, the present writ petition is only a belated attempt to challenge the Arbitration Award against which no proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had been instituted. Consequently, the remedy available to the petitioner has become barred. In view of the above this writ petition is only to be dismissed.
4. Heard. I notice that the Arbitration Award Exhibit P1 is dated 25.11.2011. According to the learned Government Pleader as well as the counsel for the first respondent, a copy of the Award duly signed by the Arbitrator was served on the petitioner on 19.11.2011. A cheque for the enhanced amount was issued on 05.03.2012, which was encashed by the first petitioner on 19.03.2012. This writ petition is seen filed only on 18.09.2014. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay in not having challenged Exhibit P1 Award at the appropriate time, invoking the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
5. The attempt of the counsel for the petitioner is to explain the delay by contending that the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could not be invoked by the petitioners for the reason that no duly signed Award had been communicated to them. As already noticed above, according to the counsel for the respondent, a copy of the Award had been communicated to the first petitioner by registered post on 19.11.2011 itself. The further contention that Exhibit P1 captioned as an order is not an Award whereas what is contemplated by law is for the Arbitrator to pass an Award. It is no doubt true that Exhibit P1 is captioned as an order but, paragraph 11 which is the operative portion of Exhibit P1 states that an Award was being passed. Accordingly, enhanced compensation was also awarded by Exhibit P1 to the first petitioner. The petitioners not having invoked the remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 at the appropriate time, there is no justification for advancing the above contentions, in a writ petition filed long thereafter.
For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to entertain this writ petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj