High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-09-17Disposed of; directive to consider Ext.P4 repre...

Joy Francis v. The Arbitrator (N.H) and District Collector, Thrissur; The Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (SLAO and CALA), National Highway Development Project (NHDP), Thrissur; The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).Nos.19191/2020 (Y); 19215/2020 (B); 19278/2020 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2020-09-17
Court Decision / Holding: This Writ Petition is disposed of. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 representations, hear the petitioners and any other interested parties, and pass orders expeditiously, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If entitlement to solatium and interest is found, the authorities are to compute and grant the benefits under the LA Act and coordinate with the NHAI to allocate funds in due course.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; directive to consider Ext.P4 representations; hear parties; six months to pass orders; NHAI to disburse funds if payable per law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joy Francis
Saramma
Babu V. Lazar
Varghese
Sosamma

Respondents

The Arbitrator (N.H) and District Collector, Thrissur
The Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (SLAO and CALA), National Highway Development Project (NHDP), Thrissur
The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP
• SRI K.P HARISH
• SRI BIMAL K NATH

Case Synopsis & Summary

The three connected writ petitions relate to land acquired for the development of National Highway 47 under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners challenge the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, arguing that solatium and interest mandated by the Land Acquisition Act are not payable under the NH Act as interpreted by certain provisions. They rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304, which held that Section 3J of the NH Act is unconstitutional to the extent it deprives landowners of solatium and interest available under the Land Acquisition Act under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 proviso. They also refer to this Court’s own decision in Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur v. Vinodkumar and Another (2020) (2) KLT 399, urging that LA Act benefits should apply to NH Act acquisitions. Ext.P4 representations were filed seeking enhanced compensation including solatium and interest. The Government Pleader conceded there is no bar to considering the representations but requested time given the volume of cases. The court reiterated Tarsem Singh and Vinodkumar, noting that solatium and interest should apply to NH Act acquisitions, and directed the 2nd respondent to hear Ext.P4 representations, with the NHAI coordinating any disbursement if payable. The petitions were disposed of with a direction to decide within six months after hearing, and to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

National Highways Act, 1956Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 23(1A)Section 23(2)Section 28 provisoSection 3JSection 3-GArticle 14 of the Constitution

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer does not include solatium and interest; they rely on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304 to argue that Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and the 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, making Section 3J unconstitutional for depriving landowners of solatium and interest. They also rely on the Kerala High Court’s decision in Vinodkumar (2020) (2) KLT 399) to press for solatium and interest and have filed Ext.P4 representations seeking enhanced compensation. They urge expeditious disposal, with the 2nd respondent hearing the representations and, if payable, directing NHAI to allocate funds.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit there is no impediment to considering Ext.P4 representations, but the 2nd respondent is overwhelmed with representations and should be given time to decide after hearing the parties. They acknowledge that if the authorities find entitlement to enhanced compensation, the NHAI will allocate the funds according to law and procedures. The NHAI’s counsel states that disbursement will follow due procedure and law after disposal of representations.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India and Another v. Tarsem Singh and Others	(2019) 9 SCC 304	Positive	The court relies on Tarsem Singh to hold that solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act; Section 3J is unconstitutional to the extent it deprives such benefits, aligning NH Act with LA Act protections.
Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur and Another v. Vinodkumar and Another	2020 (2) KLT 399	Positive	Kerala High Court held that LA Act benefits (solatium and interest) apply to NH Act acquisitions; the present court references this to direct computation and payment within a specified period.
W.P.(C). No.17044/2020 (E)	25/08/2020	Mentioned Only	Exhibit reference to a judgment dated 25/08/2020; cited for context but not relied upon as a controlling authority in the reasoning.

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 Joy Francis v. The Arbitrator (N.H) and District Collector, Thrissur; The Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (SLAO and CALA), National Highway Development Project (NHDP), Thrissur; The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) 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** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.19191 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **JOY FRANCIS S/O.FRANCIS, KRWA-30, TC.10/1879, ELAVATHINGAL VALIYAVEETTIL, KAWALOOR LANE, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **1 THE ARBITRATOR (N.H) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, PIN-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, PIN-680 020. 3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), PALAKKAD-679001.** **SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020 ALONG WITH WPC NOS.19215 OF 2020 AND WPC NO.19278 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.19215 OF 2020(B)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**||**SARAMMA,**| |---|---|---| |||**VALIAVEETTIL HOUSE, VATTAKKALLU DESOM,**| |||**P.O.PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 651.**| |**2**||**BABU V.LAZAR**| |||**VALIAVEETTIL HOUSE, VATTAKKALLU DESOM,**| |||**P.O.PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 651.**| |||**BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL**| |**RESPONDENTS**|<br>**:**|| |**1**||**THE ARBITRATOR (N.H) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR**| |||**THRISSUR, PIN - 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, PIN - 680 020.**| |**3**||**THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,**| |||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI),**| |||**PALAKKAD - 679 001.**| ## **SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020 ALONG WITH WPC NOS.19191 OF 2020 AND WPC NO.19278 OF 2020,, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.19278 OF 2020(H)** ## **PETITIONERS :** |**1**|**VARGHESE,**| |---|---| ||**S/O.MATHAI, KUDILIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU,**| ||**P.O.CHUVANNAMANNU, PATTIKKAD,**| ||**THRISSUR-680 652.**| |**2**|**SOSAMMA,**| ||**W/O.VARGHESE, KUDILIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU,**| ||**P.O.CHUVANNAMANNU, PATTIKKAD,**| ||**THRISSUR-680652.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL**| |**RESPONDENTS**|<br>**:**| |**1**|**THE ARBITRATOR (N.H) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**THRISSUR, PIN-680001.**| |**2**|**THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,**| ||**SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT**| ||**AUTHORITY OF LAND ACQUISITION (SLAO AND CALA),**| ||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NHDP),**| ||**THRISSUR, PIN-680020.**| |**3**|**THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,**| ||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI),**| ||**PALAKKAD-679001.**| **SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL SRI. BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020 ALONG WITH WPC NOS.19191 OF 2020 AND WPC NO.19215 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 4** ## **JUDGMENT** The property owned by the petitioners herein were acquired for the development of National Highway 47 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 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).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 5** their point that the petitioners are also entitled to solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. Their prayer in this Writ Petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation 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 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 Supreme Court had occasion to hold as follows in **Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh case** (Supra); **WP(C).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 6** “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 necessary directions can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation 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 **WP(C).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 7** 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** IAP **WP(C).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 8** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).NO.19191 OF 2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF**| |---|---| ||**COMPENSATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN LAC.522/09.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.62/2013 IN LAC.**| ||**NO.522/2009 DATED 4/2/2013 OF THE FIRST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/8/2020**| ||**IN W.P.(C). NO.17044/2020 (E).**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT ON 1/6/2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER**| ||**NO.LAC.781/2009 DATED 22/2/2020.**| ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL** **WP(C).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 9** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).NO.19215 OF 2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN LAC.721/09.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.750/2013 IN LAC.NO.721/2009 DATED 24/6/2013 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/8/2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.17044/2020(E).** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 1/6/2020.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO.LAC.781/2009 DATED 22/2/2020.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL** **WP(C).Nos.19191, 19215 & 19278 OF 2020 10** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).NO.19278 OF 2020** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN LAC.1422/09.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.611/2013 IN LAC.NO.1422/2009 DATED 13.06.2013 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.08.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.17044/2020(E).** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 16.01.2020.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO.LAC.781/2009 DATED 22.02.2020.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL**