Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 08-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) represented by DGM (T) and Project Directors of the Project Implementation Units (Salem and Coimbatore). Respondents – multiple land owners (the 3rd respondents) including T.K. Appachi, Vijayarani, T.S. Kumarasamy, Shri P. Rangaraj, Shri Ilamurugu, Smt. R. Suryaprabavathy, Shri Ravi, Smt. Savithiri, R. Subramaniam, etc.
  • Arbitration Appeals: Arb. Appeal Nos. 47 of 2025, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 87, 94 & 96 of 2026 and associated CMP Nos. 24259 of 2025, 18233, 19449, 17255, 16012, 18120, 19525, 20672, 17481, 15127 of 2026.
  • Background: NHAI acquired land for the widening and bypass of National Highway No. 47 (Salem‑Coimbatore stretch, km 56.500‑100.000) under the National Highways Act, 1956. Notification under Section 3A(1) was published on 24‑04‑2006; objections invited on 23‑07‑2006; Section 3D(1) notification approved; public notice under Section 3G(3) published on 09‑06‑2007. The Competent Authority fixed compensation at Rs 50.89 per square metre.
  • Arbitration Award: The District Collector/Sole Arbitrator (Tiruppur) rejected enhancement claims, granted 30% solatium and interest, relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304.
  • Judicial Intervention: The Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, confirmed the award but added a 12% additional value under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for each land owner.
  • Grounds of Appeal: NHAI argued that the 12% addition was not part of the arbitral award, that courts cannot modify awards under Section 34(2), and cited Project Director, NHAI v. Hakeem (2021) 9 SCC 1. Respondents contended that while solatium and interest are due, the 12% addition is not.
  • Legal Precedents Cited: Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304 (struck down Section 3‑J of NH Act, affirmed solatium/interest), National Highways Authority of India & another v. Tehal Singh (2021) SCC Online SC 3175 (clarified Section 23(1‑A) does not apply to NHAI acquisitions), Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. DMRC (2022) 1 SCC 131 (limited court power under Section 34).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the Principal District Judge’s grant of 12% additional value is a patent illegality under Section 34(2A) and set it aside.
  • The confirmation of the arbitrator’s award of solatium and interest is upheld.
  • NHAI is directed to disburse the full compensation amount together with solatium and interest, less any amount already paid, to each land owner within sixty (60) days of receipt of this judgment.
  • All connected CMPs are closed; no order as to costs.

Topics: Land Acquisition, Arbitration, Highway Infrastructure