JUDGMENT M.VENUGOPAL, J. ( 1. ) THE appellant/third party has preferred the present writ appeal as against the order dated 6.8.2009 in W.P. No. 13275 of 2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge, after obtaining leave of this Court. ( 2. ) THE Learned Single Judge, while passing the order in W.P. No. 13275 of 2009 dated 6.8.2009, has, among other things, observed that ?therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the right of the Petitioner in respect of property acquired under the , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ?Act?), the petitioner/1st respondent is entitled to receive the payment of Rs. 42,90,989/- as per the Award towards compensation as determined in the Award No. 9 of 2008? etc. , and resultantly allowed the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent/1st respondent and the 3rd respondent/2nd respondent to disburse the cheque bearing No. 110108 dated 3.6.2009 for a total sum of Rs. 42,90,989/- to the 1st respondent/petitioner forthwith, however, not later than 25.8.2009. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party urges before this Court that the Order of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 13275 of 2009 dated 6.8.2009 is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. ( 3. ) IT is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petition itself is not maintainable for not adding the present appellant as respondent in the writ petition though is the proper and necessary party to the proceedings. ( 4. ) ADVANCING his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party that the Learned Single Judge has not taken into account the fact that the entire compensation has been paid by the appellant/third party and if any cheque is to be issued towards compensation to the 1st respondent/petitioner, the same should be signed and cleared by the appellant and hence the appellant is a proper and necessary party and since the present appellant was not added as a party respondent, the entire proceedings in the writ petition are liable to be quashed as not maintainable. Expatiating his submissions, it is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party that the Learned Single Judge is not correct in issuing a positive direction in the writ petition by directing the respondents 2 and 3 to dispose the cheque bearing No. 110108 dated 3.6.2009 for a total sum of Rs. 42,90,989/- without even coming to the conclusion as to whether the 1st respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to claim the said amount and also whether the said cheque is alive/valid on the date of order, when the fact remains that the cheque has been cancelled by the 2nd respondent/Competent Authority on 9.6.2009 itself, i.e. much before the order could be passed by the Learned Single Judge in the writ petition. ( 5. ) THE Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party brings it to the notice of this Court that the Cheque bearing No. 110108 has been cancelled by the Competent Authority on 9.6.2009 itself and hence there is no Cheque to be issued and therefore, the question of issuance of any direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to dispose of the said Cheque which was already cancelled, does not arise. ( 6. ) THE Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party further projects an argument that the appellant/third party has not been provided with an opportunity to set forth their case; that the compensation amount of Rs. 42,90,989/- has been arrived at by wrong calculation and later on, the same was rectified and proper amount has been arrived at Rs. 15,79,048/- by the Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer, Tiruppur, vide his proceedings in R.C. No. 24898 of 2009 (Award No. 9 of 2008) F1, dated 16.11.2009 based on the report received from the Executive Engineer (PWD Buildings) CandM Division, Coimbatore dated 19.9.2009. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party contends that when the sum of Rs. 42,90,989/- has been rectified based on the report received from the Executive Engineer (PWD Buildings) CandM Division, Coimbatore dated 19.9.2009, the learned Single Judge is not correct in directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to disburse the said sum of Rs. 42,90,989/- inasmuch as the 1st respondent/petitioner is not entitled to claim such a huge amount. ( 7. 42,90,989/- has been rectified based on the report received from the Executive Engineer (PWD Buildings) CandM Division, Coimbatore dated 19.9.2009, the learned Single Judge is not correct in directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to disburse the said sum of Rs. 42,90,989/- inasmuch as the 1st respondent/petitioner is not entitled to claim such a huge amount. ( 7. ) THE Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party submits that after passing Declaration under Section 3-D of the Act, the entire land vests with the appellant/3rd Party by virtue of Central Government Notification entrusting the road and as such, the appellant/third party is a proper and necessary party and any order passed without hearing the appellant/third party will result in serious miscarriage of justice. ( 8. ) YET another contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party is that the Learned Single Judge has not considered the factual aspect that the calculation of compensation for the Well is only Rs. 5,16,436/- and it is erroneously calculated as Rs. 32,96,859/-. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/third party that the amount so awarded erroneously can be rectified by the Competent Authority at any time based on reasonable grounds. ( 9. ) PER contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner that the Competent Authority (L.A.), NH-67/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore District has passed the Award No. 9 of 2008 on 24.11.2008, by granting a sum of Rs. 42,90,989/- as compensation to the 1st respondent/petitioner and that the Learned Single Judge in the writ petition, has directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to disburse the Cheque for a sum of Rs. 42,90,989/- in respect of the Award No. 9 of 2008 before 25.8.2009. Further, it is incorrect to state that the Executive Engineer, as per letter No. TS/JD02/ F.27M/639 M/09, dated 19.9.2009, had furnished his report revaluing the Well and determining the revised value and that the revised value has been informed to the Competent Authority by the appellant/third party. ( 10. ) ALSO, the Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner contends that till date, the 1st respondent/petitioner has not received any communication from the Competent Authority regarding the correction made in the Award No. 9 of 2008 by the Competent Authority viz., District revenue Officer, Thimppur by his order dated 16.11.2009 by rectifying the award amount to Rs. ( 10. ) ALSO, the Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner contends that till date, the 1st respondent/petitioner has not received any communication from the Competent Authority regarding the correction made in the Award No. 9 of 2008 by the Competent Authority viz., District revenue Officer, Thimppur by his order dated 16.11.2009 by rectifying the award amount to Rs. 15,79,048/- from Rs. 42,90,989/-. The learned counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner would further argue that under scheme of things of the Act, after the compensation amount has been arrived at by the Competent Authority, he becomes functus officio and thus has no power/authority to amend or modify the Award and if the amount so determined by the Competent Authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the only course open for them is to approach the Arbitrator. The learned counsel would further argue that since in the case on hand, Competent Authority himself has passed a revised award, it is illegal and is liable only to be set aside. ( 11. ) IN short, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/petitioner that the 1st respondent/petitioner is entitled to the amount as per orders passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2009 in W.P. No. 13275 of 2009. ( 12. ) A perusal of the letter bearing No. TS/JD02/F.27M/639 M/09, dated 19.9.2009 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD., Buildings (CandM) Division, Coimbatore, addressed to the appellant/third party shows that the revaluation for the Well located in S.F. No. 166/3 of Madhapur Village for 4 way track (extension) NH 67 from Karur to Coimbatore has been determined at Rs. 5,16,436/-. The proceedings of the Competent Authority (LA), NH-67/District Revenue Officer, Thiruppur District, Thiruppur in R.C. No. 24898 of 2009 (Award No. 9 of 2008) F1, dated 16.11.2009, indicates that the Award No. 9 of 2008, dated 24.11.2008 has been modified and accordingly, the revised Award amount for the acquisition of Rs. 3172.50 sq.mtrs in S. Nos. 166/3A, 167/5B, 167/6 and 167/7B in Madhapur Village, Palladam Taluk, Thiruppur District for the purpose of upgradation and widening of NH-67 (Karur to Coimbatore) under the Act to the 1st respondent/petitioner has been passed to an extent of Rs. 15,79,048/- in all. ( 13. ) AT this stage, it is useful to mention the Revised Award amount details which are as follows: 1. Land value for Rs. 3,172.50 sq. 15,79,048/- in all. ( 13. ) AT this stage, it is useful to mention the Revised Award amount details which are as follows: 1. Land value for Rs. 3,172.50 sq. mtrs @ Rs. 220 Per Sq.mtr. Rs. 6,97,950 2. Structure Value SF No. 167/ 5B2-House Rs. 1,91,017.00 3. Less 6% salvage amount Rs. 11,461.02 Total Rs. 1,79,555.98 4. Well SF No. 166/3 A 5,16,436.00 SF 167/6- (1/4th share in Rs. 3,23,039.00) Rs. 80,759.75 5,97,195.75 Tree value-SF 166/3 A 1,44,220.00 Total Rs. 9,20,971.73 Rs. 9,20,971.73 Total 16,18,921.73 10% additional amount as per 3G(2) of NH Act 1956 1,61,892.17 Total 17,80,813.90 Less: TDS 1780813.90 X 11.33% = 201766.21 2,01,766.21 Net: 15,79,047.69 Rounded off 15,79,048/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Forty Eight only). ( 14. ) IN the revised/modified Award proceedings of Competent Authority dated 16.11.2009, it is also stated that in the meantime, the project Director, NHAI Karur in their letter dated 20.8.2009 observed that the dimensions considered for the valuation of Well in S.F. No. 166/3 of Madhapur Village, were at variance with the actual dimensions of the well. He has requested the E.E., PWD, Buildings (Cand M) Division Coimbatore to furnish a revised estimate as per the site condition to the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore so as to enable to pass the compensation amount based on the revised estimate. Accordingly, the E.E., PWD, Buildings (CandM) Division, Coimbatore has furnished revised valuation for the well located in S.F. No. 166/3 of Madhapur Village as Rs. 5,16,436/-. The appellant/third party is not a party to the proceeding in W.P. No. 13275 of 2009 before the Learned Single Judge. In the instant case on hand, when the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore has been authorised as a Competent Authority to acquire lands for National Highways No. 67,(Karur to Coimbatore) Coimbatore Section in Coimbatore District as per notification published in Government of India Gazette No. 953/SO. In the instant case on hand, when the District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore has been authorised as a Competent Authority to acquire lands for National Highways No. 67,(Karur to Coimbatore) Coimbatore Section in Coimbatore District as per notification published in Government of India Gazette No. 953/SO. No. 1366(E) dated 29.08.2006 and that the appellant/third party has requested to acquire 148836 sq.Mtrs of lands in the Survey numbers mentioned in the Award No. 9/2008 dated 24.11.2008 of Madhapur Village of Thiruppur Taluk, Coimbatore District for the purpose of widening of National Highway 67 between (Karur and Coimbatore) Coimbatore Section under the provisions of the Act, then this Court is of the considered view |that the appellant/third party is not only a proper party, but also a necessary party to the case for proper adjudication in the matter in issue. ( 15. ) SECTION 3-G of the Act speaks of "determination of amount payable as compensation". The Competent Authority has been vested with the authority to determine the amount of compensation payable to a concerned party under this SECTION 3-G. For easy reference, we shall extract hereunder the SECTION 3-G, which reads as follows: "3-G. Determination of amount payable as compensation - (1)Where any land is acquired under this Ac, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2)Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3)Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (3)Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4)Such notice shall state the; particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of SECTION 3-C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5)If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6)Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitrator and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7)The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration - (a)the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under SECTION 3-A; (b)the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c)the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d)if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change." (emphasis by us) ( 16. ) SECTION 3 -1 of the Act enjoins that "the Competent Authority shall have, for the purposes of this Act (National Highways Act 1956), all the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the , 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely: "(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b)requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c)reception of evidence on affidavits; (d)requisitioning any public record from any Court or office; (e)issuing commission for examination of witnesses." At this juncture, it is to be borne in mind that the National Highways Act, 1956 does not confer any power on the Competent Authority either expressly or impliedly to pass a modified Award or furnish Award overriding the earlier Award passed by himself either on account of wrong calculation or on account of wrong fixation of the value of the amount or the value of any other thing. Sub-section (5) of Section 3-G , makes it clear that if the amount determined by the Competent Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, either of the party can file an application for appointment of an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government, to determine the compensation amount. ( 17. ) ADMITTEDLY, the original Award 9 of 2008 has been passed by the Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore on 24.11.2008. Later, on 16.11.2009 the Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer, Thiruppur District has modified the original Award No. 9 of 2008 dated 24.11.2008, because of the variance in regard to the valuation of the Well in S.F. No. 166/3 of Madhapur Village with that of the actual dimensions of the well. The revised estimate has been requested to be provided by the Executive Engineer, PWD., Buildings (CandM) Division, Coimbatore as per the site condition to the Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer. Accordingly, the revised valuation for the Well in the aforesaid S. No. 166/3 of Madhapur Village has been fixed at Rs. 5,16,436/-. ( 18. ) THE Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant produced a letter in Na.Ka. No. 25995/09-M04. dated 8.2.2010 addressed to the Secretary of the Government, Highways and Small Ports Department, Chertnai-9, wherein, among other things, it is mentioned that difference of Rs. 5,16,436/-. ( 18. ) THE Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant produced a letter in Na.Ka. No. 25995/09-M04. dated 8.2.2010 addressed to the Secretary of the Government, Highways and Small Ports Department, Chertnai-9, wherein, among other things, it is mentioned that difference of Rs. 27,80,423/- pertaining to the value of the Well determined originally and later when it has been revalued is on the very higher side etc., and further that the revalue of the Well has been fixed at Rs. 5,16,436/- and for the said difference, the action can be taken against the responsible officers concerned. Also in the said letter, it is stated that Krishnasamy Gounder?s daughter-in-law Pachayammal, Wife of Dharmaraj (deceased) (the fourth respondent herein) has obtained an order of injunction from Palladam District Munsif Court in O.S. No. 141 of 2009 not to disburse the compensation amount and soon after the receipt of the said notice, the compensation cheque amount has not been issued to Krishnasamy Gounder and the same has been stopped. In the present case on hand, the 1st respondent/petitioner has filed W.P. No. 13275 of 2009 before this Court in July 2009. However, the revised/modified Award has been passed by the Competent Authority on 16.11.2009 during the pendency of the Writ proceedings in W.P. No. 13275 of 2009. ( 19. ) IN view of our finding that the Competent Authority has no authority of whatsoever to pass an amended or revised award, since not contemplated under the Act, it goes without saying that the only option available to the aggrieved party against the Award originally passed by the Competent Authority is to file an application before the Central Government for appointment of an Arbitrator, as provided for under Section 3-G(5). ( 20. ) FROM the materials placed on record, we are able to see that a civil suit in O.S. No. 141 of 2009 has been filed on the file of Palladam District Munsif Court, by the fourth respondent herein, wherein an order of interim injunction has been granted restraining the authorities from issuing any cheque. But, when the subject matter is the one to be determined under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court of District Munsif, Palladam will have no jurisdiction to try the issues concerned with and falling under the ambit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. But, when the subject matter is the one to be determined under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court of District Munsif, Palladam will have no jurisdiction to try the issues concerned with and falling under the ambit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Therefore, it would be in the best interest of all the parties concerned to participate in the arbitration proceedings to be conducted by the Arbitrator, as per Section 3-G (5) of the Act. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pinkcigty Midway Petroleums AIR 2003 SC 2881 : (2003) 6 SCC 503 , if there is an arbitration clause, in terms of Section 8 of the , the Court has a mandatory duty to refer the disputes arising between the contracting parties to Arbitrator. Though in the case on hand, there is no contract or agreement between the parties to go before the Arbitrator, the mandates the parties to work out their remedies under the. Furthermore, under Section 3-H(4) of the Act, whenever a dispute arises between the parties as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, the Competent Authority is required to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. For ready reference, we shall extract hereunder Section 3-H(4) of the Act hereunder: "If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated." ( 21. ) THIS Section 3-H (4) of the Act is akin to a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar AIR 2003 SC 942 : (2003) 1 SCR 73 : (2002) 2 MLJ 186 , the Honourable Apex Court has held that a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not confined in its operation to a person interested and that a reference under Section 30 could also be made on an oral application or even suo motu without anyone having invited the attention of the Collector for making a reference?. ( 22. ( 22. ) THIS procedure also has not been followed in the case on hand, though, as has been discussed supra, there is a dispute pending between the parties in O.S. No. 141 of 2009. Therefore, even on the point of jurisdiction, we have no hesitation to hold that the Court of District Munsif, Palladam has no jurisdiction to decide the issues concerned with the. Therefore, the very filing of O.S. No. 141 of2009 before the Court of District Munsif, Palladam, being a matter falling within the ambit and scope of , in terms of the National Highways Act, is illegal. Therefore, all the parties to the dispute including the plaintiff in O.S. No. 141 of 2009, have to seek their remedy only under the provisions of the , as has been mandated under Section 3-G (5) of the. Since there is a dispute with regard to the disbursement of the compensation amount between the respondents 1 and 4, the Arbitrator, to be appointed by the Central Government, will decide this question also, while passing the Award. ( 23. ) THEREFORE, the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. The parties are directed to work out their remedies under the , 1996 as has been mandated under Section 3-G (5) of the National Highways Act. ( 24. ) WE are informed that the District Collector of each District has been nominated as the Arbitrator for the purposes of the. In this view of the matter, considering the long lapse of time, we direct the appellant to approach the Arbitrator, if they so advised, challenging the original Award passed by the Competent Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of filing such an application either by the appellant herein or any of the parties to the dispute, the Arbitrator so nominated by the Central Government shall pass his Award, after affording due opportunities to all the parties concerned, including the appellant and respondents herein and pass his Award on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of such reference of dispute to him. The respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 15,79,048/- (fixed in the revised Awards) before the District Collector immediately. The respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 15,79,048/- (fixed in the revised Awards) before the District Collector immediately. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeal is disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 are closed.