R. Ramesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Principal Secretary To Government
2011-09-30
N.KIRUBAKARAN
body2011
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE petitioners have challenged Section 4(1) notification in respect of the lands to be acquired for the purpose of establishment of Pooling station. ( 2. ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are owners of Punja lands measuring about 33.45 acres, 33.99 acres and 34.54 acres comprised in S. Nos. 606/2B, 606/2C and 606/2D in Ettaiyapuram Village and also 15.68 acres of Punja land comprised in S. No. 606/2A totally 117.66 acres at Ettaiyapuram village. The 4th respondent officials through private negotiations intended to purchase the property for commercial purpose. The petitioner made offer to sell the land at Rs. 26.30 lakhs per acre (Rs. 63 lacks per hectare). However, when the negotiation was under process, a proposal under Section 4(1) of-the Land Acquisition Act was sent by the Tahsildar Ettayapuram to the District Collector Tuticorin District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti. The first respondent granted administrative sanction through G.O. Ms. No. 29 dated 21.4.2011 invoking Section 17(1) of the Act. On 9.6.2011, 4(1) notification was issued by publication. On 22.6.2011, declaration under Section 6 was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on various grounds. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2, 3 and 4, supporting the 4(1) notification. ( 3. ) WHEN the matter was taken up for hearing, it is seen that the acquisition of lands is for the purpose of establishing power Sub station at Tuticorin. The establishment of sub station would facilitate in meeting the power demand of southern States, especially in Tamilnadu. Records also reveal that there was an attempt by the 4th respondent to negotiate privately for purchasing the lands which are sought to be acquired. Considering the importance and necessity of establishment of power sub station in the State, this Court suggested to the. parties, to settle the matter amicably, so that public purpose would be achieved soon. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Corporation readily agreed to negotiate and settle the matter. Subsequently, they came out with the following proposals.
parties, to settle the matter amicably, so that public purpose would be achieved soon. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Corporation readily agreed to negotiate and settle the matter. Subsequently, they came out with the following proposals. 1) the 4th respondent Corporation would deposit four times of the guideline value of the property measuring an extent of 45.86.98 hectares comprised in S. No. 606/2A1, 2B1, 2C1, 2D1, situated at Ettaiyapuram Village and Taluk, Tuticorin District. 2) On such deposits, the fourth respondent corporation would be permitted to take possession of the property held by the petitioner. 3) The petitioner would file an affidavit undertaking that they would not challenge the land acquisition proceedings and also undertake not to pursue the W.P. No. 14739 of 2011 any longer. 4) The issue regarding the quantum of compensation payable in respect of the lands would be referred to a retired Judge of this Court, who would act as an arbitrator. 5) The amounts determined subject to appeal, would be deposited to the credit of this Court and the withdrawal of the said amount by the petitioner would be subject to the decision in W.P. No. 15501 of 2011 filed by the petitioner, challenging the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of land) Act 58 of 61 as amended by Act 17 of 1970. 6) The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent Corporation giving the above details also file respective affidavits before this Court seeking orders in the line of proposals submitted by them. ( 4. ) HOWEVER, Mr. Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General opposed for such a move by the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the Government in this regard, which contains the following: "1) 1894, does not provide any provision for appointment of arbitrator to determine the compensation. 2) The Land Acquisition Officer alone is having jurisdiction to pass award fixing the value of the land under. 3) Once the land acquisition proceedings is initiated compensation will be decided as per the provisions of the. 4) The 4th respondent cannot deposit four times of guideline value of the property, which is contrary to the.
2) The Land Acquisition Officer alone is having jurisdiction to pass award fixing the value of the land under. 3) Once the land acquisition proceedings is initiated compensation will be decided as per the provisions of the. 4) The 4th respondent cannot deposit four times of guideline value of the property, which is contrary to the. 5) Once the proceedings are initiated under , the requisition body has got no role to cut short the proceedings without waiting for logical conclusions." The learned Additional Advocate Genera has (sic) further submitted that the matter could not be referred to arbitration, as the Government which is acquiring body is not agreeable for-arbitration. He contended that there is no agreement between the parties for referring the matter to the arbitration and referred Section 2 (h) and (7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. If the requisition body (the fourth respondent) and the private party (the petitioner) entered into an agreement, the said agreement could be filed before the Collector under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, who alone could make an award according to the terms of such agreement. In fine, he submitted that contrary to the provisions of the nothing should be done by private agreement made between the petitioner and the 4th respondent corporation. ( 5. ) HE relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions. a) Ratankumar Tandoon and Others v. State of U.P. AIR 1996 SC 2710 : (1997) 2 SCC 161 b) B. Boman Behram (dead) by Lrs and Another v. State of Mysore and Another AIR 1974 SC 1717 : (1974) 2 SCC 316 c) AssamRoadways and Trading Company Limited v. The Collector of Lakshimpur and Another AIR 1976 SC 1182 : (1976) 3 SCC 24 d) Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim AIR 2001 SC 2062 : (2001) 5 SCC 629 e) State of Gujarat and Others v. Daya Shamji Bhai and Others AIR 1996 SC 133 : (1995) 5 SCC 746 f) State of H.P. and Others v. Dharamdas AIR 1996 SC 127 : (1995) 5 SCC 683 : (1996) 1 MLJ 35 g) Eshwarlal Premchand Shah and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others AIR 1996 SC 1616 : (1996) 4 SCC 174 h) Buguban Sing and Others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and Another AIR1990 AP 138. ( 6.
( 6. ) ON the other hand, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted the following: "1) Right from the beginning the 4th respondent was interested in getting the property by private negotiations. 2) In this regard, he referred to the proceedings of the 4th respondent Corporation dated 29.1.2010 and the proceedings dated 30.10.2010 and the 4th respondent?s letter dated 7.12.2010 addressed to the District Collector and Another letter dated 18.3.2011. 3)ONly Section 6 declaration was passed and the government has not become the owner of the property as on date. The stage is not set for invoking the provisions under Section 11(2) of the Act for passing award, where party could file a private agreement. 4)When the requisition body and the petitioners intend to compromise the matter by private negotiation and further agreed for referring the matter for arbitration to determine the market value of the property, the Government can not have any objection." He relied upon the following judgments. 1) B.C. Chadurvedi v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 484 : (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996-I-LLJ-1231 . 2) P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and Others v. P.V.G. Raju (Dead) and Others AIR 2000 SC 1886 : (2000) 4 SCC 539 : (2000) 3 MLJ 69 3) Straw Board Mfg. Co. v. Gobind, AIR 1962 SC 1500 : 1962-I-LLJ-420 Mr. Jeyash Dolia, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that when the requisition body and the petitioners have agreed for settlement, the government cannot have any objection as no prejudice is caused to the government. It should be endeavour of the Government to see that the project is implemented speedily. Therefore, he seeks an order in the terms of the proposal submitted by petitioners and the fourth respondent. ( 7. ) HEARD the parties and perused the records carefully. Though the main writ petition is to challenge the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act, the present stage does not warrant of this Court to pass any order with regard to validity of 4(1) notification.
( 7. ) HEARD the parties and perused the records carefully. Though the main writ petition is to challenge the Land Acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act, the present stage does not warrant of this Court to pass any order with regard to validity of 4(1) notification. The petitioners, who challenge the land acquisition proceedings have themselves come forward to file an affidavit before this Court on 12.9.2011 stating not to pursue the present writ petition No. 14739 of 2011 any longer and the said paragraph of the affidavit reads as follows: "In view of the deposit referred to in para 3(b) is being made and also in view of the reference to arbitration regarding fixation of compensation for the lands in question, the petitioners undertake not to pursue the W.P. No. 14739 of 2011 any longer." ( 8. ) FURTHER, by virtue of the paragraph 3(d) of the said affidavit, the petitioners undertake to hand over possession of the subject land to the 4th respondent and the said paragraph is extracted as follows: "(d) On such deposit being made by the 4th respondent as stated in para 3(a) and 3(b) above, the petitioners undertake to hand over immediate possession of the subject land to the 4th respondent." In view of the above affidavit, the petitioners waive their right to challenge Section 4(1) notification and undertake to hand over possession of the subject land to the 4th respondent which is the requisition body. Therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to decide about validity of 4(1) notification. The petitioners as well as the 4th respondent further agreed by the said affidavits stating the following: "1) The 4th respondent Corporation agreed to deposit four times of the guideline value of the land. 2)On such deposit, the petitioners agreed to hand over possession of the properties to the 4th respondent, 3)The dispute regarding the quantum of compensation payable to the subject land could be referred to a retired Judge of this Court for arbitration." ( 9. ) THE acquisition proceeding has been initiated only at the instance of the requisition body namely the 4th respondent corporation for the purpose of establishing 765/400 KV, Sub Station at Ettayapuram Village near Tuticorin.
) THE acquisition proceeding has been initiated only at the instance of the requisition body namely the 4th respondent corporation for the purpose of establishing 765/400 KV, Sub Station at Ettayapuram Village near Tuticorin. Right from the beginning, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Corporation that the fourth respondent has been showing interest to get the property through negotiation/settlement based on the market value. A communication dated 6.1.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Ettayapuram was addressed to the third respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, which reads as follows: "Tamil" ( 10. ) BY proceedings dated 30.10.2010 and also in the letter dated 7.12.2010 and 18.3.2011, the 4th respondent specifically stated that the land could be obtained either by invoking urgency clause under Section 17(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 or under negotiated settlement based on the market value of the land, as the possession of the land is immediately required for establishment of the sub station. The aforesaid documents would only show that the 4th respondent is interested in private negotiation so that it would get possession of the land for early establishment of sub station. Therefore, the 4th respondent is justified in entering into an agreement with the petitioner to get possession of the land for infrastructure building exercise, which is in the interest of general public. Even after initiation of land acquisition proceedings by the Government at the request of requisition body, the 4th respondent is unable to get the property immediately for establishment of sub station, whereas it is proved that the 4th respondent is in a position to get the land through private negotiations immediately, subject to certain conditions/proceedings. The act of fourth respondent and the petitioner should be encouraged by the acquiring authorities. What is sought to be achieved finally by the land acquisition proceedings is achieved immediately and easily by the 4th respondent itself by private negotiation. For such a easy mode, the government cannot object on the ground that the acquisition proceedings is in the midway. ( 11.
What is sought to be achieved finally by the land acquisition proceedings is achieved immediately and easily by the 4th respondent itself by private negotiation. For such a easy mode, the government cannot object on the ground that the acquisition proceedings is in the midway. ( 11. ) THE plea that the matter could not be referred to arbitration for determination of market value of the subject land is not available to the government, is to be rejected, for the simple reason that compensation is to be paid only by the requisition body and the government is not going to spend any money on this account. THErefore, no prejudice is caused to the government. When the entire matter is sought to be settled under the agreement between the petitioners and the 4th respondent, the insistence of the Government to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings and determination of the value of the property as per the procedure contemplated under the Act is un-warranted and it would only delay the establishment of the sub station, which would be beneficial to the State Government. ( 12. ) AS on date, the government only issued 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration. Thereafter, no progress could be made because of the pendency of the proceedings. ASsuming that the proceedings are to be sustained by this Court, further steps would take long time for getting possession by the 4th respondent as stated above and that would be against the public interest. Any adjudication by this Court, would be subject to further appeal and till it attains finality, it would not be certain when the 4th respondent is going to get possession. When what is sought to be achieved at the conclusion of land acquisition proceedings, is directly achieved by the agreement reached by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, it should be encouraged by the Government. The opposition by the government for private agreement reached by the petitioner and the 4th respondent would not be in favour of early establishment of power station. No doubt there is no provision in the for referring the matter for arbitration and the acquisition proceedings cannot be referred to arbitration. In fact by the agreement, the acquisition proceedings are made valid and possession is to be obtained by the 4th respondent in a short time.
No doubt there is no provision in the for referring the matter for arbitration and the acquisition proceedings cannot be referred to arbitration. In fact by the agreement, the acquisition proceedings are made valid and possession is to be obtained by the 4th respondent in a short time. The only dispute which is sought to be referred for arbitration is regarding the quantum of compensation for the subject land. There is no prohibition in the, prohibiting the determination of the market value by the arbitrator. That apart, once possession of the subject land is obtained by the fourth respondent directly from the petitioners, the acquisition proceedings are decreed to have been concluded. Thereafter, the decision to refer the dispute regarding determination of market value of the subject to an arbitrator is by way of private agreement. The private agreement has got nothing to do with the land acquisition proceedings. In other words, by private agreement, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been concluded and thereafter the provisions of alone are applicable for determination of market value of the subject land. The arbitrator who is to be appointed is a retired Judge of this Court, whose task is only to determine the value by following due process of law. The amount to be determined would be subject to any other available appeal proceedings. ( 13. ) WHAT is sought to be achieved by the Land acquisition proceedings is straight away achieved by the 4th respondent by getting possession of the property only with a pre-condition to deposit four times of the market value of the subject property. If the 4th respondent/requisition body chooses its own method or procedure or private agreement to determine the market value in respect of the subject land, it is within its right/liberty to do the same, for the simple reason that the liability to pay compensation only falls on the 4th respondent and not on the Government. ( 14. ) AS already observed, because of the inability of the 4tn respondent to get possession of the property through private negotiation at the instance of the Government land acquisition proceedings have been intiated to acquire the property for the purpose of 4th respondent.
( 14. ) AS already observed, because of the inability of the 4tn respondent to get possession of the property through private negotiation at the instance of the Government land acquisition proceedings have been intiated to acquire the property for the purpose of 4th respondent. If the 4th respondent in the decision of the acquisition proceedings, is able to achieve what could be achieved before the end of land acquisition proceedings, it can adopt its own method for further action without bothering the State Government and in that event, the land acquisition further proceedings have to be stopped. To put in otherwise, the acquisition body always can ask the State Government or the concerned government not to proceed further in the acquisition matter, as it is able to get the land by lawful way. In that event, the requisition body is within its right to ask the government not to proceed further and it is not open to the acquisition authority to insist that it would proceed further and take action as per the Act till its conclusion. If such a stand is taken, it would be against the very object of the Act and public interest. What is material for the acquisition authorities is the deposit by the requisition body as precondition for acquisition. Once the said amount is deposited, the acquisition authorities would initiate the acquisition proceedings. After deposit of the amount and during acquisition proceedings, the requisition body is at liberty to get the land by private negotiation. The judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General in (2001) 5 SCC 639 is not applicable to the facts of the case, wherein arbitration award was challenged. While dealing with that matter and setting aside the award of the arbitration, the Apex Court held that the award of arbitrator cannot be opposed to law and what is not permissible in law cannot be granted. Similarly, in State of H.P. and Others v. Dharamdas (supra), the Hon?ble Apex Court held that awarding of interest on equitable grounds, contrary to the statute is illegal. In this case, there is nothing contrary to law is sought for by the petitioners? and the fourth respondent. Judgment in AIR 1974 SC 316 is with regard to ultimate authority of the government to approve the compensation award.
In this case, there is nothing contrary to law is sought for by the petitioners? and the fourth respondent. Judgment in AIR 1974 SC 316 is with regard to ultimate authority of the government to approve the compensation award. It is held in that case that fixation of the award is an offer made on behalf of the government and the finality of the award under Section 11 of the Act, vests with the State Government. The said situation does not arise in this case. Even before taking possession, the matter is sought to be settled. As far as the jugement in Assam Roadways and Trading Company Limited v. The Collector of Lakshimpur and Another (supra) is concerned, the question fell for consideration was whether pre-acquisition private agreement between the requisition body and the land owners bind the Collector regarding determination of compensation. In that case, an offer was made by requisition body to the land owner before acquisition proceedings was started. Thereafter, acquisition proceedings were initiated. In that case, it was held that the authority namely Collector has power to determine the market value of the land and that pre-acquisition offer/agreement cannot bind the Collector with regard to determination of compensation. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable. In State of Gujarat and Others v. Daya Shamji Bhai and Others (supra), wherein the question, was after agreement, agreed to accept the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, wherein claimants are entitled to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act in Civil Court. Wherein it was held that when the claimant entered into an agreement to receive the compensation/award under Section 11(2) in terms of the contract, it is not open to the claimant to seek Civil Court, reference under Section 18 of the Act. In this case, no such agreement under Section 11(2) was entered into. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to this case. In judgments in Eshwarlal Premchand Shah and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others (supra) and judgment in Ratankumar Tandoon and Others v. State of U.P. (supra), besides other points, it was held that it is not necessary for the State to proceed with the determination of the compensation under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation shall be paid only as per 11(6) of the Land Ceiling Act.
In this case, 4(1) notification reflects the name of the petitioners as well as Land Ceiling authority names. ( 15. ) THE proceedings under Land Ceiling Act is already the subject matter of W.P. No. 15501 of 2011 filed by the petitioner. Any compensation to be determined would be subject to the result of the above W.P. No. 15501 of 2011. THErefore, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention raised by the government. Section 2-H of the Arbitration Act 1996 reads as follows: "Party" means a party to an arbitration agreement. Section 7 of the read as follows: "7.Arbitration Agreement- (1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. (2)An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement Act." From the above, it is clear from Section 2(h), the petitioners as well as the 4th respondent are the parties to the arbitration agreement. THE arbitration agreement is made by two separate affidavits filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent. In view of the above said circumstances, the affidavits would constitute an arbitration agreement as per Section 7 of the Act. A reference for arbitration can be made by an order of this Court. That is the dictum rendered in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others (supra). Paragraph 23 reads as follows: "It deserves to be pointed out that mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material, according to me. This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh case that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction.
This may be illustrated by pointing out that despite there being no provision in the Constitution parallel to Article 137 conferring power of review on the High Court, this Court held as early as 1961 in Shivdeo Singh case that the High Courts too can exercise power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction. I would say that power to do complete justice also inheres in every Court, not to speak of a Court of plenary jurisdiction like a High Court. Of course, this power is not as wide as which this Court has under Article 142. That, however, is a different matter." ( 16. ) SIMILARLY, paragraphs 6 to 8 of the judgment in P.Anand Gajapathi Raju and Others v. P.V.G. Raju (Dead) and Others (supra) is also extracted as follows at p. 71 of MLJ: "(6.) In our view, the phrase "which is the subject of an arbitration agreement" does not, in the context, necessarily require that the agreement must be already in existence before the action is brought in the Court. The phrase also connotes an arbitration agreement being brought into existence while the action is pending. Black?s Law Dictionary has defined the word "is" as follows: "This word, although normally referring to the present, often has a future meaning, but is not synonymous with ?shall have been?. It may have, however, a past signification, as in the sense of ?has been?. (7.) A further question arises whether the Court is in these circumstances obliged to refer the parties to arbitration and if so with what effect. (8.) In the matter before us, the arbitration agreement covers all the disputes between the parties in the proceedings before us and even more than that. As already noted, the arbitration agreement satisfies the requirements of Section 7 of the new Act. The language of Section 8 is peremptory. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement. Nothing remains to be decided in the original action or the appeal arising therefrom. There is no question of stay of the proceedings till the arbitration proceedings conclude and the award becomes final in terms of the provisions of the new Act. All the rights, obligations and remedies of the parties would now be governed by the new Act including the right to challenge the award.
There is no question of stay of the proceedings till the arbitration proceedings conclude and the award becomes final in terms of the provisions of the new Act. All the rights, obligations and remedies of the parties would now be governed by the new Act including the right to challenge the award. The Court to which the party shall have recourse to challenge the award would be the Court as defined in clause (e) of Section 2 of the new Act and not the Court to which an application under Section 8 of the new Act is made. An application before a Court under Section 8 merely brings to the Court?s notice that the subject-matter of the action before it is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement. This would not be such an application as contemplated under Section 42 of the Act as the Court trying the action may or may not have had jurisdiction to try the suit to start with or be the competent Court within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the new Act." Therefore, by virtue of affidavits filed by the petitioner and fourth respondent, an arbitration agreement has come into existence. In fine, this Court holds: a) Petitioner waived their right to challenge Section 4(1) notification and undertook to hand over possession of the subject land to the fourth respondent and therefore, there is nothing to be decided about validity of acquisition proceedings. b) When the requisition body tries to acquire the land through private negotiation even before conclusion of the acquisition proceedings, it is always open to the requisition body to have private negotiation even in the middle of the acquisition proceedings. c) Once the requisition body informs or makes it clear that it intends to get possession of the property during the land acquisition proceedings, it is appropriate for the concerned government not to proceed further in that matter. d) The requisition body is at liberty to negotiate or enter into agreement to achieve its object including a reference to arbitrator by way of private agreement between the land owner and the requisition body. e) The Government cannot insist for continuation of the proceedings on the premise that it would alone determine the value of the property or proceed further with the acquisition proceedings inspite of the 4th respondent efforts to amicably settle the matter through negotiation.
e) The Government cannot insist for continuation of the proceedings on the premise that it would alone determine the value of the property or proceed further with the acquisition proceedings inspite of the 4th respondent efforts to amicably settle the matter through negotiation. f) Once by private agreement possession is sought to be obtained by the requisition body in the middle of acquisition proceedings, it is deemed that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to be concluded. g) Thereafter, the acts of the parties are governed by provisions of alone and provisions of would not be applicable. There is no liability on the part of the government to pay, as the entire amount agreed by private negotiation is to be born by the 4th respondent. h) By virtue of affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, there will be an arbitration agreement as per Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. i) Considering the contention made in notes filed by the 4th respondent that if the government is not interested in the project, it will take a decision to withdraw the project and take to any other state, this Court is of the opinion that, the objection of the Government may not be in the interest of the State. j) Petitioners and fourth respondent are not agreeable with regard to the market value of the subject land. Hence the dispute with regard to the compensation payable in respect of subject land is referred to an arbitrator and this Court appoints the Hon?ble Mr. Justice K.P. Siva subramaniam as an arbitrator to determine the value of the subject land as per law and the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence both oral and documentary in respect of their land and this Court requests the learned Judge to decide the matter as early as possible. The remuneration of the Arbitration would be fixed by the Arbitrator. ( 17. ) THE 4th respondent has stated in the affidavit, it is ready to deposit four times of the guide line value of the property namely Rs. 14,25,20,560/- deducting the amount already deposited Rs. 4,73,88,086/-. THErefore, the balance amount of Rs.
The remuneration of the Arbitration would be fixed by the Arbitrator. ( 17. ) THE 4th respondent has stated in the affidavit, it is ready to deposit four times of the guide line value of the property namely Rs. 14,25,20,560/- deducting the amount already deposited Rs. 4,73,88,086/-. THErefore, the balance amount of Rs. 9,51,32,474/- is directed to be deposited by the fourth respondent in the name of the Registrar General, High Court, Madras to the credit of W.P. No. 14736 of 2011 within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On such deposit, the petitioners shall deliver physical possession of the subject land within one week thereafter to the fourth respondent. THE aforesaid amount would be kept in the deposit till the decision is rendered in W.P. No. 15501 of 2011 whether the land would be covered by the proceedings under the land Ceiling Act or not. It is made clear that the withdrawal of the aforesaid amount by the petitioners would be subject to the result of the writ petition and till it reaches finality. THE writ petition is disposed of with above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.