Kerala High Court
Jancy vs The Abitrator (N.H.) And District ... on 7 September, 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
MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 16TH BHADRA, 1942
WP(C).No.17939 OF 2020(N)
PETITIONER(S) :
JANCY,
D/O.LATE JOSE, THALIYATH HOUSE,
CHUVANNAMANNU P.O., PATTIKKADU P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 652.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE ABITRATOR (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 MATHEWS K PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL
SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.17939 OF 2020(N) 2
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~ Land owned and possessed by the petitioner herein was 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 petitioner 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 petitioner contends 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 petitioner that since the entitlement of the landowners for solatium and interest having been declared by the Apex Court, the petitioner 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 her point that the WP(C).No.17939 OF 2020(N) 3 petitioner is also entitled to the solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation. The limited prayer of the petitioner 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 petitioner, Sri.Mathews K. Philip, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. 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".
6. 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 WP(C).No.17939 OF 2020(N) 4 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
7. In the light of the precedents above, I am of the opinion that necessary directions can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner. Before passing orders, the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent or a person authorized by him 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.
This Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP WP(C).No.17939 OF 2020(N) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN LAC.1426/09.
EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAC PROCEEDINGS OF APPOINTMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND COMPRISED IN SY.NO.597/1-19A AND 598/1-15 OF PEECHI VILLAGE VIDE LAC.NO.1427/09.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.582/2013 IN LAC.NO.1426/2009 DATED 7/6/2013 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.583/2013 IN LAC.NO.1427/09 DATED 7/6/2013.
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 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 18/2/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.1442/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO.LAC.783/2009 DATED 22/2/2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL