Kerala High Court
Ratnam Velayudhan vs The Deputy Collector 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.17703 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONER :
RATNAM VELAYUDHAN,
AGED 79 YEARS,
D/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, KADAMBANATTU HOUSE,
(GARDEN CENTRE), VATTAKALLU,
MUDICODE, P.O.PATTIKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN-680652.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
SRI.ABEL ANTONY
SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
SLAO AND CALA, NHDP,
THRISSUR, PIN-680620.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE ARBITRATOR (LANH),
THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN-680003.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA(NHAI),
PALAKKAD, PIN-678007.
SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP S.C.,NATIONAL HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY OF INDIA
SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2020 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).No.17774 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.17703 & 17774 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.17774 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER :
RANJITH KUMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA PODUVAL,
KADAMBANATTU HOUSE, (GARDEN CENTRE),
VATTAKKALLU P.O., PATTIKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN-680 652.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN
SRI.ABEL ANTONY
SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
SLAO AND CALA, NHDP,
THRISSUR, PIN-620 680.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE ARBITRATOR (LANH),
THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA(NHAI),
PALAKKAD, PIN-678 007.
SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, S.C.,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.17703 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.17703 & 17774 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.17703 & 17774 of 2020 4 their point that the petitioners are also entitled to the solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 1st respondent. Though various other reliefs are sought for in this writ petition, when the matter came up for admission, the limited prayer of the petitioners is to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation within a time frame.
4. I have heard Sri. K.S.Bharathan, 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.17703 & 17774 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 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 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 1st 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 NS WP(C).Nos.17703 & 17774 of 2020 6 APPENDIX of 17703 of 2020 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN L.A.C.NO.118/2009 DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF AWARD NO.222/2012 DATED 09.11.2012 GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2020 IN WPC NO.8714 OF 2020.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE WP(C).Nos.17703 & 17774 of 2020 7 APPENDIX of 17774 of 2020 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN L.A.C NO.730/2009 DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.213/2013 DATED 06/04/2013 GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25/03/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/03/2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/3/2020 IN WPC NO.8714/2020.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE