Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Commander K.P. Sasidharan vs Union Of India on 20 July, 2010

Shine A Sathar vs Union Of India on 24 August, 2020

In the light of Sasidharan's case (supra), the landlord shall be paid 75% of the compensation deposited without any delay. [ WP(C).35020/2019 & WP(C).1658/2020 ] 4 The National Highway is free to take possession in accordance with law. The claim of the tenants shall be considered by the competent authority after notice to the petitioners-tenants and landlord within a further period of two months.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document

K.Moideen Kutty vs Special Deputy Collector on 9 June, 2022

2. The petitioners claim to be the tenants of a building which belonged to the 3rd respondent and which is subject matter of acquisition proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the competent authority has already passed an award as LAC No.277/Kasaragod and while calculating the compensation, the building where the petitioners are conducting their business has not been properly valued. According to the petitioners, there are several improvements made in the building both in the interior and the exterior and without a proper valuation being done, they will suffer huge loss. It is stated that the petitioners have preferred a suit as O.S.253/2021 before the Munsiff Court, Kasaragod. The WP(C) NO. 13334 OF 2022 3 petitioners have preferred Ext.P6 application before the 1 st respondent, who is the competent authority, requesting to recall the compensation determined in LAC No.277/Kasaragod and to pass a fresh award after ascertaining the value of the improvements made by the petitioners in the building as well and apportioning compensation between the landlord and the petitioners. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Sasidharan V. Union of India reported in 2020 (4) KLT 329 to submit that notice is contemplated to all interested persons and the petitioners have not been put on notice of the acquisition proceedings. The Standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent on instructions submits that once the award is passed, the competent authority becomes functus officio and the remedy of any person aggrieved by the award is to move the Arbitrator, who is the District Collector in this case. The Arbitrator has not been made a party in these proceedings. It is further submitted that Section 3G of the National Highways Act does not contemplate personal notice to the interested persons and all that is contemplated is a public notice, based on which claims are to be submitted by all persons who are interested. The competent authority is bound to consider such claims at the time of passing of the award. It is submitted that WP(C) NO. 13334 OF 2022 4 the petitioners have not preferred any claim subsequent to the notifications issued and hence there was no question of the competent authority adjudicating such claims. It is pointed out that award was passed as early as in 2021 and Ext.P6 application has been preferred on 30.03.2022, much after the award. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the petitioners have to approach the Arbitrator, they will be prejudiced since a proper valuation of the building has not so far been done and once the building is demolished there will be no manner in which value can be ascertained. The standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent submits that once the issue is referred for arbitration, the powers available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will apply and under Section 17 of the said Act, the Arbitrator has power to issue interim orders also.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document
1