Kerala High Court
K.Balakrishnan vs The Arbitrator (N.H) on 3 December, 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
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.26704 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONERS:
1 K.BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.THANKAMMA, G3,
INDU GARDENS,
VIYYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 010
2 K.VIJAYAN
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.THANKAMMA, G3,
INDU GARDENS,
VIYYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 010
3 K.MAYA DEVI @ MAYA KERALAN
AGED 68 YEARS
D/O.THANKAMMA, G3,
INDU GARDENS,
VIYYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 010
4 K.RADHA
AGED 66 YEARS
D/O.THANKAMMA, G3,
INDU GARDENS,
VIYYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 010
5 K.VENUGOPALAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.THANKAMMA, G3,
INDU GARDENS,
VIYYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 010
6 K.PARTHASARATHY
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.THANKAMMA, G3,
INDU GARDENS,
VIYYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 010
WP(C).No.26704 OF 2020 2
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ARBITRATOR (N.H)
AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR 680 001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY OF LAND ACQUISITIONS (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 BIMAL K NATH SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.26704 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
The property owned by the petitioners herein were acquired for the development of Mannuthy -Wadakkumcherry Section of National Highway 47 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 modified, 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 WP(C).No.26704 OF 2020 4 judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur, and Another v. Vinodkumar and Another [2020 (2) KLT 399] to bring home their point that the petitioners are also entitled to solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. Their prayer in this Writ Petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation within a time frame.
4. I have heard Sri. George Mecheril, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mathews K Philip, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
5. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there is no impediment in considering the representation. However, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent is flooded with representations and he be granted some time to dispose of the same after considering the individual merits of the matter. He also submitted that in the event of the 2nd respondent holding that the concerned claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation, it is for the NHAI to allot the amount to the respective claimants. The standing counsel appearing for the NHAI submitted that those are matters which would arise for consideration only after disposal of the representation by the 2nd respondent. He assured that the allotment of funds to settle the claims shall be done as per procedure, expeditiously and in accordance with law.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The Hon'ble WP(C).No.26704 OF 2020 5 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:
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 above, I am of the opinion that WP(C).No.26704 OF 2020 6 necessary directions can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioners. Before passing orders, the petitioners, as well as the 3rd respondent or a person authorized by the said authority, shall be heard. In view of the submission of the learned counsel that the 2nd respondent is flooded with representations, I direct the said respondent to take up the matter according to its seniority and pass orders expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP WP(C).No.26704 OF 2020 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF
COMPENSATION IN LAC NO.125/2009
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 21.5.2012 IN AWARD
NO.46/2012 IN LAC NO.125/2009 AGAINST EXT
P1
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/8/2020
IN WP(C) NO.17044/2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23.8.2020
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FORWARDED TO
KUTTAPPAN ACHARI DATED 10/12/19
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2020
IN W.A. NO.1442/2019
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER
NO.LAC.783/2209 DATED 22.2.2020
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR ON
15/5/2017