High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-03-09Writ petition disposed of in part; CALA directe...

Jameela & Shakeela Abdul Kareem v Union of India & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-03-09
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of to the limited extent of directing CALA to complete proceedings with respect to the Award in favour of the petitioners, implicitly as per the NH Act and specifically adverting to the observations in Aboobacker M. (supra). The court emphasizes that it cannot dictate the precise valuation method, but that the decision-making process should be subject to judicial review, following Administrative Law principles.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of in part; CALA directed to complete proceedings for the Award under the National Highways Act in accordance with the court’s observations (Aboobacker M.).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JAMEELA
SHAKEELA ABDUL KAREEM

Respondents

Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India
State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
State of Kerala, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
National Highways Authority of India, G-586, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075, by its Chairman
Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, TC-29/1539/1 Rajasree Kairali, Perumthanni, Vallakkadavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 008
Special Deputy Collector, Competent Authority Land Acquisition (CALA) (NH-66), Kuttippuramedappally, N. Paravoor-683 513, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.K. Sajeevan
• Freddy Philip
• A. Jinish Lal
• S.B. O. Anish Raj
• A.H. Sincey
• K.A. Abdul Nistar
• Radhakrishnan B.

Counsels for Respondents

• B.G. Bidan Chandran
• K. Amminikutty
• S. Manu

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, Jameela and Shakeela Abdul Kareem, challenge an award under the National Highways Act for land acquired for the NH-66 project by the CALA. They contend that the compensation should reflect the land’s present attributes and not merely entries in revenue records that classifiy the land as paddy land. They argue the property is not included in the Data Bank under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Paddy Land Act), and therefore CALA should value it as garden land in its current state, in line with the observations in the court’s decision in Aboobacker M. & Others v. Union of India & Others (2021) (KHC 5) 761. The petitioners seek a direction to ensure the Award reflects the land’s actual characteristics rather than a classification under the Paddy Land Act. The respondents submit that the petition is not maintainable and that CALA must determine the value according to law without dictate from the petitioners; any delay in issuing an Award would prejudice the project. The court observes that CALA must determine compensation under Section 3G of the NH Act and cannot micromanage the valuation. It emphasizes that judicial review targets the decision-making process, not the substantive outcome. The court, relying on Aboobacker M., directs CALA to complete proceedings with respect to the Award, implicitly in accordance with the NH Act and the cited observations, without directing a particular valuation method.

Provisions of Law Cited

National Highways Act (NH Act) - Section 3G

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the CALA should determine compensation based on the land’s present attributes and should not rely solely on revenue records classifying the land as paddy land. They submit that the land is not included in the Data Bank under the Paddy Land Act and therefore must be treated as garden land per its actual condition, guided by the Court’s observations in Aboobacker M. The relief sought is a direction to CALA to award compensation accordingly, filtering out a purely revenue-based approach.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the petition is not maintainable and that CALA has the discretion to determine the value in accordance with the NH Act. They argue that no party can compel the CALA on the method of valuation and that any delay in the Award would prejudicially affect the project; CALA should proceed to issue an appropriate Award without delay.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Aboobacker M. & Others v. Union of India & Others	2021 KHC (5) 761	Positive	The court relies on the observations/holdings in Aboobacker M. to justify focusing on the decision-making process under the NH Act rather than dictating a specific valuation approach; the decision is aligned with the principles laid out in that judgment.

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 Jameela & Shakeela 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 9[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 JAMEELA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.ASHRAF, KASALIPARAMBIL, MALIPPURAM, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-682 503.** - **2 SHAKEELA ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL KAREEM, REETHAMMA MANZIL, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 513.** **BY ADVS.P.K.SAJEEVAN FREDDY PHILIP.A JINISHLAL S.B. O.U.ANISH RAJ A.H.SINCEY K.A.ABDUL NISTAR RADHAKRISHNAN B.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL DELHI P.O., NEW DELHI-110 001.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN-695 001.** - **4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **5 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G-586, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110 075, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** - **6 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TC-29/1539/1 RAJASREE KAIRALI, PERUMTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.** **WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022** **-2-** - **7 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION (CALA) (NH-66), KUTTIPPURAMEDAPPALLY, N.PARAVOOR-683 513, ERNAKULAM.** **SRI.B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN, S.C SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P. SRI.S.MANU, ASGI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022** **-3-** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court with a speculative apprehension that while the Award is issued with respect to their properties now acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), its market value will not be assessed based on its present physical attributes, but only on the entries in the Revenue Records, which classifies it as a 'paddy land'. 2. The petitioners assert that the properties in question can never be construed as a 'paddy land', because it is not included in the 'Data Bank' prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Paddy Land Act', for short); and therefore, that the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed ## **WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022** **-4-** under the provisions of the National Highways Act (the 'NH Act', for short), is obligated to award compensation, treating it as a 'garden land' as per its present attributes and adverting to the judgment of this Court in _**Aboobacker M. & Others v. Union of India & Others**_ [2021 KHC (5) 761]. The petitioners, therefore, pray that CALA be directed to do so. 3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.P.K.Sajeevan – learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable, because the petitioner cannot dictate to the CALA the manner in which the Award is to be issued. She submitted that, as long as the Award is not settled, it is up to the CALA to determine the value of the properties as per law and that he will do so taking into account all germane and relevant ## **WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022** **-5-** inputs. 4. Sri.B.G.Bidan Chandran – learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, submitted that his client has no comment to make on the valuation of the properties, but added that any delay by the CALA in issuing an Award will cause irreparable prejudice to the execution of the Project in question. He thus prayed that, notwithstanding the petitioners' objections, CALA may be permitted to issue an appropriate Award with respect to the properties in question without any further delay. 5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that it is for the CALA to determine the compensation eligible to the owner of a property, consequent to its acquisition. Of course, while doing so he will have to be guided by the provisions of Section 3G of the 'NH Act' and will also have to advert to the observations and holdings of this Court in _**Aboobacker M.**_ ## **WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022** **-6-** (supra). As rightly stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court cannot dictate to the CALA the manner in which determination has to be done and, as is well known in the Administrative Law Jurisprudence, it is not normally the decision but the decision making process which should be subjected to a judicial review. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the CALA to complete proceedings with respect to the Award in favour of the petitioners, relating to the properties in question, implicitly as per the provisions of the 'NH Act' and specifically adverting to the observations of this Court in _**Aboobacker M.**_ (supra). ## **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv **-7-** ## **WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4489/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO.9205/1/07 OF SRO PARAVOOR DATED 01.12.2007 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO.9320/07 OF SRO PARAVOOR DATED 05.12.2007 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE 1ST PETITIONERS PROPERTY DATED 11.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE VADAKKEKARA EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE 2ND PETITIONERS PROPERTY DATED 16.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE VADAKKEKARA EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER IN LAC NO.105/2021/VDK EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN LAC NO.106/2021/VDK EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 14.02.2021 PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.70452/RD3/2012 DATED 23.02.2012 OF THE DATA BANK.** **WP(C) NO. 4489 OF 2022** **-8-** **EXHIBIT P9** **TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER ISSUED BY VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 11.10.2021** **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER ISSUED BY VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 07.02.2022** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE**