High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-04-06Writ petition disposed with directions for 3G(5...

ANIL P.V. & ABDUL KAREEM v UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 12653 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-04-06
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed with directions: (a) The petitioners may file an application under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act before the Statutory Arbitrator within two weeks from receipt of the judgment, and the Arbitrator shall consider it after affording opportunities to the petitioners and NHAI officers; (b) All petitioners’ contentions, including those under Aboobacker v. UOI and Exts. P4–P5, will be open for consideration by the Statutory Arbitrator and reflected in the resulting order; (c) If the action under (a) is not completed within eight months of filing, the petitioner may approach the Court for a time frame to be fixed, considering germane circumstances. The Court records that the decision supports seeking 3G(5) relief before the Arbitrator and retains jurisdiction for timely intervention if needed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed with directions for 3G(5) arbitration and related open contentions; liberty to approach the Court if arbitration does not finalize within eight months; action to be taken by the Statutory Arbitrator with due notice and hearing.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anil P.V.
Abdul Kareem

Respondents

Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India
Regional Officer, National Highway Authority of India, Kerala
The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit Kozhikode
Director General, Road Development & Special Secretary, MoRT&H
The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (Head Office)
State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Public Works Department
Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (NH17), Up Hill, Malappuram
The District Collector, Malappuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Sathisan
• Dona Augustine

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Amminikutty (Senior Government Pleader)
• Bidan Chandran (Standing Counsel, NHAI)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition before the Kerala High Court concerns the award of compensation for land acquired for National Highway development under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners, Anil P.V. and Abdul Kareem, contend that the CALA awards (Exts. P2 and P2(a)) were computed by misclassifying the properties as wetland, whereas they have remained dry for decades. They rely on Exts. P4 and P4(a) (data bank entries) and Ext. P5 (certificate from an Agricultural Officer, dated 10/04/2019) to argue that the actual land nature warrants higher compensation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. They seek modification of the awards to reflect the correct land type and valuation within a specified timeframe. The respondents concede that CALA has issued awards under Section 3G(1) but assert that the remedy for any challenge lies in Section 3G(5) before the Statutory Arbitrator, and not in re-computation of the original award. The court notes a well-established position that once a 3G(1) award is issued, CALA is functus officio except for supplementary awards (citing Usman Arif v. Project Director, NHAI). It further clarifies that altering the original awards is not permissible and directs the petitioners to pursue 3G(5) arbitration, while keeping contentions open for consideration by the Arbitrator and with a view to judicial review if necessary within eight months. The court also cites Aboobacker v. UOI for guidance on valuation methodology.

Provisions of Law Cited

National Highways Act, 1956 (Sections 3G(1), 3G(5))Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Functus officio
Supplementary Awards
Remedy under NH Act 3G(5) before the Statutory Arbitrator

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the CALA awards under the NH Act were not based on the actual character of the land, which remains dry and not wetland, as evidenced by Exts. P4 and P4(a) data bank entries and Ext. P5 certificate. They seek modification of Exts. P2 and P2(a) to reflect the true nature of the properties under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and request a time-bound direction to CALA for re-determination. They contend that the data-bank entries and certificates justify higher compensation; hence, the only proper remedy is recalibration via a modification of the awards, or at least an arbitration remedy under 3G(5). They acknowledge CALA's statutory role but argue that a direct modification through the writ petition is necessary if the statutory path delays justice; they also seek opportunity to present Exts. P4–P5 before the Arbitrator.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that CALA has determined compensation under Section 3G(1) and that the petition cannot seek a modification of the original award; the appropriate remedy is under Section 3G(5) before the Statutory Arbitrator, who will hear the petitioners and the NHAI officers and issue an appropriate order. They cite Usman Arif v. P.D. NHAI to support the position that a 3G(1) award is functus officio except for supplementary awards. They reference Aboobacker v. UOI for the method of valuing property, and argue that the petition should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction to modify the award. They propose that the District Collector (as Arbitrator) be directed to consider Exts. P4–P5 and hear the parties within the statutory framework.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Usman Arif v. Project Director, National Highways Authority of India	2022 (1) KLT 35	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that once a 3G(1) award is issued, the CALA is functus officio except for supplementary awards.
Aboobacker v. Union of India	2021 (5) KHC 761	Positive	Cited for guidance on the valuation methodology and the manner of assessing property value in the arbitration context.

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 ANIL P.V. & ABDUL KAREEM v UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 12653 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1ANIL P.V., AGED 50 YEARS S/O. K.P. ACHUTHAN NAIR, ANUPAMA HOUSE, TAVANUR VILLAGE, AYANAKALAM, PONNANI P.O., MALAPPURAM- 679573. ``` ``` 2ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. MOIDEEN, KALODY HOUSE, SWAGATHAMAD, CHERUSHOLA P.O., THENNALA, CHERUSHOLA, TIRURANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM-676510. ``` ``` BY ADVS. P.SATHISAN DONA AUGUSTINE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL DELHI P.O., NEW DELHI-110001.` - `2 REGIONAL OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA, TC 86/1036-1, AMBLY ARCADE, S.N.N.R.A. 9 PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024.` - `3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT KOZHIKODE, LOTUS HOUSE 34 1487A, PROVIDENCE WOMENS COLLEGE ROAD, MALAPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673009.` 2 ## W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 ``` THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ``` - `(ROAD DEVELOPMENT) & SPECIAL SECRETARY, ROOM` - `4 NO.213, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN-1, PARLIAMENT STREET, CENTRAL DELHI P.O., NEW DELHI-110001.` - `5 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (HEAD OFFICE), DWARAKA SECTOR 10, SOUTH WEST DELHI P.O., NEW DELHI-110075.` - `6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN-695001.` - `7 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH17) UP HILL, CIVIL STATION P.O., MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676505.` - `8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, CIVIL STATION P.O., MALAPPURAM-686505.` ## `SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY.SR.G.P.` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 6 th day of April, 2022 .** The petitioners, who claim to be the owners of certain properties acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), concede that Ext.P2 and P2(a) Awards have been issued by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, (‘NH Act’ for short); but alleging that the compensation granted is woefully insufficient because the physical nature of the properties has been wrongly construed as a wet land, though it was remaining as a dry land for the last several decades. They thus pray that CALA be directed to modify the Awards assessing the 4 ## W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 actual nature of the properties, taking note of Exts.P4 and P4(a) entries in the Data Bank, preferred under the mandate of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, also Ext.P5 certificate issued by the competent Agricultural Officer within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. However, in response to the afore request of Sri.P.Sathisan – learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.K.Amminikutty – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the determination of the compensation with respect to the property in question has already been completed by the CALA which is evident from Exts.P2 ad P2(a) Awards; and therefore, that remedy of the petitioners is to approach the competent Statutory Arbitrator, under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the ‘NH Act’. She thus prayed that this 5 W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 writ petition be dismissed. 3. Sri.Bidan Chandran – learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, endorsed the afore submissions of Smt.K.Amminikutty; but added that if the petitioners are to approach the competent Arbitrator, then directions may be issued that the officers concerned of his client be also heard in such process. 4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is evident that the case of the petitioners is that the value of the properties has been wrongly calculated by the CALA. However, this Court has already declared that once the CALA issues an Award under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act, it is rendered functus officio, except for the purpose of issuing supplementary Awards (see for support **Usman Arif v. Project Director, NHAI** (2022 (1) KLT 35). 6 ## W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 5. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, since the petitioners seek re-computation of the value of the properties, in effect, what they require is not a supplementary Award, but a modification of the original one itself. I am afraid that this cannot be done and that the petitioners will have to invoke their statutory alternative remedy, assailing the said Awards under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. 6. Presumably, being aware of the mind of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients will approach the District Collector, who is the Statutory Arbitrator under the provisions of the NH Act; but prayed that said Authority be directed to advert to **Aboobacker v. Union of India** (2021 (5) KHC 761), which declares the manner in which the value of a property is to be assessed and finalised. 7 ## W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition with the following directions: (a) The petitioners will be at full liberty to make an application under Section 3G(5) of the ‘NH Act’ before the statutory Arbitrator against Exts.P2 and P2(a) Awards; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, it shall be considered by the said Authority, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, as also to the officers concerned of the NHAI; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon without any avoidable delay. (b) I make it clear that all the contentions of the petitioners impelled in this case, including on the touchstone of the judgment of this Court in **Aboobakar Vs. National Highway Authority of India** , as also on 8 ## W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 Exts.P4 and P4(a) and Ext.P5, are left open to be pursued by them appropriately before the statutory Arbitrator; which Authority will consider the same and reflect upon them in the resultant order. (c) I leave liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court if action in terms of direction (a) above is not completed by the Statutory Arbitrator within a period of eight months from the date on which the application for arbitration is made; in which event, this Court will consider fixing a time frame for such purpose, depending on the germane circumstances at that time. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** Raj/27.06.2022. 9 W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12653/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SALE DEED NO.488/2011 DATED 29/01/2011 OF EDAPPAL SRO.` - `Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SALE DEED NO. 3054/2004 DATED 17/09/2004 OF KOTTAKKAL SRO.` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE 3G AWARD NO. D 5704/2021/PNI/769 DATED 18/02/2022.` - `Exhibit P2(A)` - `TRUE COPY OF THE 3G AWARD NO. D 6371/2021/TG1/818 DATED 15/11/2021.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE REF. NO. A 447/90 DATED 29/01/1992 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DATA BANK ENTRY (LAND DETAILS) OF THAVANNUR VILLAGE.` - `Exhibit P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF DATA BANK ENTRY OF EDARIKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE FROM KRISHIBHAVAN THAVANOOR DATED 10/04/2019.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF SUBJECT MATTER PROPERTY.` 10 ## W.P.(C)No. 12653 of 2022 - `Exhibit P6(A)` - `Exhibit P7` - `Exhibit P8` - `Exhibit P8(A)` - `TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF SUBJECT MATTER PROPERTY.` ``` TRUE COPY OF ACQUISITION MAHAZZAR NO. TCI/818/2018 PREPARED FOR THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 17/11/2021. ``` - `TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 3G CLAIM PETITION IN PROCEEDINGS NO. OF CALA (NH) D 5704/2021/PNI/769 FILED BEFORE 8TH RESPONDENT.` - `TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 3G CLAIM PETITION IN PROCEEDINGS NO. OF CALA (NH) D 6371/2021/TGI/818 FILED BEFORE 8TH RESPONDENT.`