Kerala High Court
K.V. Tomy vs The National Highway Authority Of India on 26 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 579
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.17663 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER/S:
1 K.V. TOMY,
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O. VAREED K.T., RESIDING AT KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE,
N.H. BYPASS, NADATHARA POST AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
2 FANCY TOMY,
AGED 63 YEARS,
W/O.K.V. TOMY,
RESIDING AT KANNANAIKKAL HOUSE, N.H. BYPASS,
NADATHARA POST AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SRI.JOHN PAX IGNATIUS
SRI.SHAHID AZEEZ
SMT.CHANDRALEKHA SANU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
PLOT G-5 AND 6, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI 150
007, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NO. 310 A,
CHANDRANAGAR EXTENSION, CHANDRANAGAR P.O. PALAKKAD
678 007.
3 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4 THE DISTRICT LAND ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
FOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY 47, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE
P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 003.
WP(C).No.17663 OF 2020 2
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE P.O.
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 003.
6 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(SLAO), AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LA), NHDP, TALUK,
OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 020.
SRI.MATHEWS K. PHILIP,SC
SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.17663 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).No.17663 OF 2020 4 their point that the petitioners are also entitled to the solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 6th respondent. The limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation within a time frame.
4. I have heard Sri. T. Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mathew Philip, the Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned 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. WP(C).No.17663 OF 2020 5 The benefits shall be given within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
7. In the light of the precedents cited above, I am of the opinion that necessary directions can be issued to the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioners in tune with the precedents cited above. Before passing orders, the petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent or a person authorized by him shall be heard. Orders shall be passed by the 6th 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 NS WP(C).No.17663 OF 2020 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. A2-1625/12 DATED 17/10/2013 OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SLAO AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LA), NHDP, THRISSUR 20 TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. A2-1625/12 DATED 17/10/2013 OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SLAO AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LA), NHDP THRISSUR 20 TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/1/2020 IN WPC NO. 20389/2019 ON THE FILES OF THIS HNOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/08/2020 WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SIXTH RESPONDENT ON 17/8/2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE