High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-07Disposed of

Ali and Others v. The Arbitrator (NH) and District Collector, Thrissur; Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (SLAO and CALA), National Highway Development Project (NHDP), Thrissur; Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), Palakkad

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2020-10-07
Court Decision / Holding: This Writ Petition is disposed of. The court directs the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4–Ext.P4(g) representations in accordance with law, hear the petitioners or an authorized representative before passing orders, and to decide expeditiously, in any case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If entitlement to solatium and interest is found, the authorities shall compute and grant benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, with NHAI facilitating fund allocation as per law.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ali
Lalar
Jayaprakasan
Saraswathi
Rajagopal
Vijayakumari
Suhara

Respondents

The Arbitrator (NH) and District Collector, Thrissur-680 001
The Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (SLAO and CALA), National Highway Development Project (NHDP), Thrissur-680 020
The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), Palakkad-679 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Mecheril

Counsels for Respondents

• Mathews K Philip, SC
• Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the award of compensation for land acquired for widening the Mannuthy–Wadakkumcherry section of the National Highway under the National Highways Act, 1956. Seven landowners from Thrissur district challenge the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, seeking solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act (23(1A), 23(2)) and the proviso to Section 28, which they contend must be payable to acquisitions made under the NH Act following Union of India v Tarsem Singh. They rely on this court’s decisions and the Supreme Court ruling which held that Section 3J of the NH Act is unconstitutional to the extent it deprives solatium and interest, and that the Land Acquisition Act protections must apply to NH Act acquisitions. The petitioners urge immediate payment of solatium and interest and to direct the 2nd respondent to consider their Ext.P4–P4(g) representations within a time frame. The government and NHAI contend there is no bar to considering the representations but that the 2nd respondent is overburdened; the matter should be decided on merits after hearing the claimants. The court, after noting relevant precedents (Tarsem Singh and Vinodkumar), directs the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioners and to dispose of the representations expeditiously, within six months, and that any allocation of funds will follow once enhanced compensation is determined. The petition is disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3JNational Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G (as referred in the judgment)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(1A)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23(2)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28 (proviso)Constitution of India - Article 14

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Equality before the law (Article 14) of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that Tarsem Singh held that Section 3J of the NH Act is unconstitutional to the extent it deprives solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act and that Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and the proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act should apply to NH Act acquisitions; they relied on Vinodkumar and related decisions to claim entitlement to solatium and interest. They prayed for immediate consideration of Ext.P4–P4(g) representations and for directions to the 2nd respondent to grant solatium and interest, with funds arranged by NHAI if enhanced compensation is found. Ext.P4–P4(g) were to be acted upon promptly; they sought hearing of petitioners before orders.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued there is no bar to considering the representations and that the 2nd respondent is overwhelmed with representations, requiring time to assess merits; if enhanced compensation is found, it is for NHAI to allocate funds; the decision on representations would arise after hearing and on merits, following due process.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India and Another v. Tarsem Singh and Others	(2019) 9 SCC 304	Positive	Court held that Land Acquisition Act solatium and interest provisions apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act; Section 3J found unconstitutional to the extent it deprives such benefits under Article 14.
Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur, and Another v. Vinodkumar and Another	2020 (2) KLT 399	Positive	Kerala High Court held that solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act apply to NH Act acquisitions and that benefits should be computed under the Act, directing timely payment.
W.P.(C) No. 17044/2020	W.P.(C) No. 17044/2020	Mentioned Only	Judgment dated 25.8.2020 in a related writ petition cited as Exhibit P3; referenced for context rather than as binding precedent in the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ali and Others v. The Arbitrator (NH) and District Collector, Thrissur; Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (SLAO and CALA), National Highway Development Project (NHDP), Thrissur; Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), Palakkad and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020(A)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 ALI, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. AVAROSUKUTTY, KARAPPAM VEETIL, MUDICODE, PATTIKKAD P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.** - **2 LALAR, S/O. AVAROSUKUTTY, KARAPPAM VEETIL, MUDICODE, PATTIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.** - **3 JAYAPRAKASHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUPADOM, PATTIKKAD P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.** - **4 SARASWATHI, KALLEPPILLY HOUSE, VAZHUKKUMPARA, PATTIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.** **5 RAJAGOPAL S/O. BHASKARAN, MATTERI HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.** - **6 VIJAYAKUMARI, POTHANATH HOUSE, MELECHIRA, CHUVANNAMANNU, PATTIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.** - **7 SUHARA, W/O. BAVA, PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPADY, MANNUTHY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 651.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE ARBITRATOR (NH) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001.** **2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF LAND ACQUISITION (SLAO AND CALA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NHDP), THRISSUR-680 020.** **WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020** **2** **3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), PALAKKAD-679 001.** **SRI K.P HARISH SR GP SRI.MATHEWS K. PHILIP, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The property owned by the petitioners herein was acquired for the purpose of widening the Mannuthy- Wadakkumcherry section of 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 modified, no sums were 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** **WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020** **4** ## **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. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 to Ext.P4(g) representations before the 2nd respondent. Their prayer in this Writ Petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to considerExt.P4 to Ext.P4(g) representations within a time frame. 4. I have heard Sri.George Mecheril, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mathews K Philip, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 5. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there is no impediment in considering the representation. However, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent is flooded with representations and he be granted some time to dispose of the same after considering the individual merits of the matter. He also submitted that in the event of the 2nd respondent holding that the concerned claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation, it is for the NHAI to allot the amount to the respective claimants. The standing counsel appearing for the NHAI submitted that those are matters which would arise for consideration only after disposal of the representation by the 2nd respondent. He assured that the allotment of funds to settle the claims shall be done as per procedure, expeditiously and in accordance with law. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The Hon’ble **WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020** **5** ## 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". ## 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 **WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020** **6** necessary directions can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 to Ext.P4(g) representations filed by the petitioners. Before passing orders, the petitioners, as well as the 3rd respondent or a person authorized by the said authority, shall be heard. In view of the submission of the learned counsel that the 2nd respondent is flooded with representations, I direct the said respondent to take up the matter according to its seniority and pass orders expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Petition is disposed of. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** sru **WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020** **7** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION IN LAC NO. 755/2009 DATED 15.05.2010.** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF LAC PROCEEDINGS NO. 826/2009 DATED 07.05.2010.** - **EXHIBIT P1 B TRUE COPY OF THE LAC NO. 912/2009 DATED 21.06.2010.** - **EXHIBIT P1 C TRUE COPY OF THE LAC NO. 1014/2009 DATED 27.05.2010.** **EXHIBIT P1 D TRUE COPY OF THE LAC NO. 887/2009 DATED 14.05.2010. EXHIBIT P1 E TRUE COPY OF THE LAC NO. 1358/2009 DATED 26.07.2012. EXHIBIT P1 F TRUE COPY OF THE LAC NO. 1459/2009 DATED 27.05.2010. EXHIBIT P1 G TRUE COPY OF THE LAC NO. 91/2009 DATED 04.11.2009. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 22.06.2013 IN AWARD NO.674/2013 IN LAC NO. 755/2009 AGAINST EXT. P1. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 27.04.2013 IN AWARD NO. 326/2013 IN LAC NO. 826/2009 EXHIBIT P2 B TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 09.05.2013 IN AWARD NO. 388/2013 IN LACNO. 912/2009 EXHIBIT P2 C TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10.04.2013 IN AWARD NO.247/2013 IN LAC NO. 1014/2009 EXHIBIT P2 D TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 09.05.2013 IN AWARD NO. 387/2013 IN LAC NO. 887/2009 EXHIBIT P2 E TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 17.12.2014 IN AWARD NO.214/2014 IN LAC NO.1358/2009 EXHIBIT P2 F TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 30.04.2013 IN AWARD NO. 346/2013 IN LAC NO. 1459/2009** **WP(C).No.21007 OF 2020** **8** **EXHIBIT P2 G TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 22.10.2012 IN AWARD NO. 199/2012 IN LAC NO. 91/2009 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO. 17044/2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 B TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 C TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 D TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 E TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 F TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 G TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FORWARDED TO KUTTAPPAN ACHARI. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.2.2020 IN W.A. NO. 1442/2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO. LAC 783/2009 DATED 22.2.2020.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE**