Kerala High Court
Varghese vs The Arbitrator(N.H) And District ... on 15 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
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942
WP(C).No.18982 OF 2020(W)
PETITIONER :
VARGHESE,
S/O.MARKOSE, CHENNAL HOUSE,
THAMPBURATTIPPADI, PATTIKKADU P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN-680652.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ARBITRATOR(N.H) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR, PIN-680001.
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
SPECIAL AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY OF LAND ACQUISITION (SLAO AND CALA),
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NHDP),
THRISSUR,PIN-680020.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI),
PALAKKAD-679001.
SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL
SRI BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2020 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.18997 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s.18982 & 18997/20 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942
WP(C).No.18997 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONER :
V.R ISSAC,
AGED 72 YEARS,S/O RAPPAI,
VENGASSERY HOUSE, NH 47,
MULLAKKARA, MANNUTHY P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN-680651.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ARBITRATOR (N.H.) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR, PIN-680001.
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & COMPETENT
AUTHORITY
OF LAND ACQUISITION (SLAO & CALA),
NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NHDP),
THRISSUR, PIN-680020.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI),
PALAKKAD-679001.
SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL
SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2020 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.18982 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s.18982 & 18997/20 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 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 the solatium and interest. WP(C)s.18982 & 18997/20 4
4. The petitioners also contend that a person covered by the same notification was granted enhanced solatium and interest as per Ext.P7 order taking note of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. The petitioners in the said circumstances have filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. Though various reliefs are claimed, the prayer advanced by Sri.George Mecheril, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the representation filed by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent be ordered to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court and also Ext.P7 proceedings of the 2nd respondent.
5. 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, who appeared for the State.
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".WP(C)s.18982 & 18997/20 5
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 necessary directions can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider the representations filed by the petitioners. Before passing orders, the 3rd respondent as well as the petitioners shall be afforded an opportunity of being 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
NS/15.9.2020
WP(C)s.18982 & 18997/20 6
APPENDIX IN WP(C)NO.18982/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN LAC.1364/09.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.426/2013 IN LAC.NO.1364/2009 DATED 18.5.2013 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.17044/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 6.6.2020 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 18.2.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.1442/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO.LAC.783/2009 DATED 22.2.2020.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL WP(C)s.18982 & 18997/20 7 APPENDIX IN WP(C)NO.18997/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 20.03.2010 OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN LAC.579/09.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.292/2012 IN LAC.NO.579/2009 DATED 14.12.2012 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.17044/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 4.6.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 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.781/2009 DATED 22.2.2020.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL