Kerala High Court
K.V.George vs The Arbitrator (N.H) And District ... on 26 August, 2020
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 4TH BHADRA, 1942
WP(C).No.17773 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER :
K.V.GEORGE,
AGED 67 YEARS,S/O.VARGHESE,
KIZHAKKEPUTHUKKAYIL HOUSE,
VAZHUKKUMPARA DESOM,
CHUVANNAMANNU P.O.,
THRISSUR - 680 652.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
1 THE ARBITRATOR (N.H) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR - 680001.
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY OF LAND ACQUISITION (SLAO AND CALA),
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NHDP),
THRISSUR - 680 001.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI),
PALAKKAD - 679 001.
SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. MATHEWS K PHILIP,SC, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
OF INDIA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2020 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.17786 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.17773 & 17786 of 2020 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 4TH BHADRA, 1942
WP(C).No.17786 OF 2020(W)
PETITIONER :
SAMUEL,
AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.UNNUNNY, EBENEZER HOUSE,
VATTAKKALLU, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ARBITRATOR (N.H) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR-680001.
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY OF LAND ACQUISITION (SLAO AND CALA),
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NHDP),
THRISSUR-680 020.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI),
PALAKKAD-679 001.
SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, SC,NATIONAL HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY OF INDIA
SRI BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2020 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.17773, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.17773 & 17786 of 2020 3
JUDGMENT
The properties owned by the petitioners herein were acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway invoking the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners challenged the same before the Arbitrator. Though the amount of compensation was enhanced no sum was granted towards solatium and interest on solatium.
2. The petitioners contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Tarsem Singh and Others [(2019) 9 SCC 304] had declared that Section 3J of the National Highways Act insofar as it deprives the landowner of solatium and interest in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of the proviso to Section 28 is unconstitutional and that those benevolent provisions would apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act as well.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that since the entitlement of the landowners for solatium and interest having been declared by the Apex Court, the petitioners cannot be denied such benefits. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur, and Another v. Vinodkumar and Another [2020 (2) KLT 399] to bring home WP(C).Nos.17773 & 17786 of 2020 4 their point that the petitioners are also entitled to the solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. Though various other reliefs are sought for in this writ petition, when the matter came up for admission, the limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation filed by them within a time frame.
4. I have heard Sri. George Mecheril, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Mathew Philip, the Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Since identical issues are raised in these petitions both the petitions are taken up and disposed of together.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to hold as follows in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh case (Supra);
"We therefore declare 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 to be unconstitutional".
7. In Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur and Another v. Vinodkumar and Another [2020 (2) KLT 399], it was held thus: WP(C).Nos.17773 & 17786 of 2020 5
7. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which struck down Section 3-J of the Act and the judgment of the Madras High Court, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to the payment of solatium and interest will apply to the acquisitions made under the Act. In so far as the directions in the impugned judgment to make payment of solatium and interest are concerned, we observe that the statutory authorities are bound to compute the compensation in terms of Section 3-G of the Act and grant all benefits provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The benefits shall be given within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8. In the light of the precedents cited above, I am of the opinion that necessary directions can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioners in tune with the precedents cited above. Before passing orders, the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent or an authorized person shall be heard. Orders shall be passed by the 2nd respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
These Writ Petitions are disposed of.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru WP(C).Nos.17773 & 17786 of 2020 6 APPENDIX OF 17773 OF 2020 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN LAC.NO.1447/2009 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.733/2013 IN LAC.NO.1447/2009 DATED 24/6/2013 ISSUED BY R1.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/3/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.3315/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE ARBITRATOR.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.LAC.111/09/A6 DATED 10/12/2019I ISSUED TO KUTTAPPAN ACHARI.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.1442/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO.LAC.781/2009 DATED 22/2/2020.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL WP(C).Nos.17773 & 17786 of 2020 7 APPENDIX OF 17786 OF 2020 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN LAC NO.715/09 OF THE SPL. DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN NO.394/2013 OF THE ARBITRATOR IN LAC NO.715/2009 DATED 10.05.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2020 IN WPC NO.3315/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE ARBITRATOR.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.LAC.111/09/A6 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED TO KUTTAPPAN ACHARI.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2020 IN WA NO.1442/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO.LAC 783/2009 DATED 22.02.2020.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE