Kerala High Court
A.P.Varghese vs The Special Deputy Collector (La) on 19 June, 2012
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/26TH SRAVANA 1934
WA.No. 1503 of 2012 IN WPC/8615/2009
------------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.8615/2009 DATED 19-06-2012
.........................................................................
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
--------------------------------------------
1. A.P.VARGHESE,
PROPRIETOR,
M/S.ST.GEORGE ENTERPRISES,
KARUKUTTY P.O., KARAYAMPARAMBU,
ERNAKULAM.
2. NEENA VARGHESE,
W/O.A.P.VARGHESE,
PYNADATH AYYAMPILLIL
PULIYANOM P.O. PEECHANIKAD,
ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI. SUNIL V.MOHAMMED
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
-------------------------------------------------
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
SLAO & COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
N.H.D.P. CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680020.
2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REP.BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, CHEMBUKAVU
THRISSUR - 680020.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, 682 030.
BY ADV. SRI. THOMAS ANTONY, SC, NH AUTHORITY
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-08-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DCS
Manjula Chellur,Ag. CJ.,
&
A.M. Shaffique, J.
.................................................
W.A. No. 1503 of 2012
..................................................
Dated: 17-08-2012
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur,Ag. CJ., Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Pleader.
2. It is not in dispute that the appellant along with his wife owns a small scale industrial unit manufacturing cables in 12.25 cents of land. It is also not in dispute that out of this 12.25 cents of land, four cents of land was acquired for the purpose of widening National Highway 47. According to appellants, functioning of the unit is severely affected making other land also useless, on account of restrictions imposed not to put up construction within 35 metres on either side of the centre of the road NH 47. The issue or controversy pertaining to the present appeal is Ext.P8 relied upon by the appellant. According to the appellant, Ext.P8 is an order determining valuation of the property, therefore, it attracts Section 3 -G (3) of the National Highway Act ("the Act" for short). It is also not in dispute that W.A. No. 1503 of 2012 -:2:- to determine value of property under Section 3 of the Act, it has to be by a competent authority who has power and jurisdiction to determine the value of the property. According to the appellant, Ext.P8 is prepared by Tahsildar. Therefore, apparently, it is not the SLAO. As a matter of fact, it was the contention that Ext.P8 before the learned Single Judge was issued by Special LAO.
3. In that view of the matter, after referring to the details at Ext.P8, the learned Single Judge was justified in saying it does not even indicate who prepared Ext.P8. In the absence of any authority competent to prepare Ext.P8 as contemplated under Sec. 3-G, one cannot place reliance on this document. Therefore, the main contention of the appellant that the valuation shown at Ext.P8 at Rs. 1,96,98,745/- was brought down to Rs. 10,43,329 by virtue of Ext.P1 by Special LAO as arbitrary and illegal, cannot be considered in this Writ Petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
4. As a matter of fact, after referring to various provisions of the Act, i.e. Section 3-G(1), 3-G (3), the learned Single Judge was justified in saying, in the absence of ascribing Ext.P8 as genuine document under Sec. 3-G(3) of the Act, the only recourse open to the appellant was to substantiate his claim before the W.A. No. 1503 of 2012 -:3:- arbitrator by virtue of arbitration clause. He is entitled to bring on record all the material available in support of his claim including Ext.P8 and the same has to be considered by the Arbitrator in accordance with the procedure. Arbitration is also an adjudication process where both the parties can put forth their claim and the award will be passed adjudicating the claims of the parties.
5. In that view of the matter, we are of opinion, learned Single Judge was justified in leaving open to the appellant to pursue arbitration in terms of Section 3-G (5) of the Act. The learned Judge was also considerate to the appellant by indicating the time frame as well.
6. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Appeal, without interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing appellants to pursue arbitration exercise within three months from today. We note from the submission of the appellants' counsel that already an application is submitted seeking arbitration process. Therefore, we need not give further time to appellants to file representation. However, arbitrator is none other than the District Collector concerned. He shall dispose of the arbitration representation, in accordance with the procedure contemplated, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the W.A. No. 1503 of 2012 -:4:- judgment.
Both the parties are also at liberty to bring on record all materials in support of their claim before the arbitrator. Dated 17th day of August, 2012.
Manjula Chellur, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ani.