N.M. Surendran and others v. The Arbitrator (NH) and District Collector, Thrissur; Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer and CALA, NHDP, Thrissur; Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.19684 OF 2020(I)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 N.M. SURENDRAN, S/O MURUKAN, NAYARANGADY HOUSE, UNITY NAGAR, MUKKATTUKARA P.O., NETTISSERY, THRISSUR, PIN-680651.** - **2 C.N. MEENAKSHY, W/O. RAMANKUTTY, PUTHUKKATTUKARAN HOUSE, MULLAKKARA P.O. MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PIN-680 651.** - **3 V.M. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, VELUTHEDATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPADY, MANNUTHY P.O, THRISSUR,PIN-680651.** - **4 M.C. MANI, S/O. CHANI, MALAKKARAN HOUSE, MULLAKKARA, P.O. MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PIN-680 651.** - **5 VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O.MANIKKAN, MALAKKARAN HOUSE, MULLAKKARA, MANNUTHY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680 651.** - **6 RAJALSKSHMI, W/O. LATE CHANDRAN, ASWATHY, 3RD STREET, KAIRALY NAGAR, THOTTAPPADY, MANNUTHY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680 651.** ## **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** **WP(C).No.19684 OF 2020** **2** **3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), PALAKKAD-679 001.** **SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP SRI.MATHEWS K. PHILIP, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.19684 OF 2020** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The property owned by the petitioners herein was 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 **WP(C).No.19684 OF 2020** **4** home their point that the petitioners are also entitled to solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Exts.P4 to P4(e) representations before the 2nd respondent. Their prayer in this Writ Petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P4 to P4(e) 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 Government Pleader. 5. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there is no impediment in considering the representations. 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 representations 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** **WP(C).No.19684 OF 2020** **5** ## **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 necessary directions can be issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P4 to P4(e) representations filed by the petitioners. Before **WP(C).No.19684 OF 2020** **6** 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** DSV **WP(C).No.19684 OF 2020** **7** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION IN LAC. NO. 830/2007 EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDER SUB-SEC. 3G(3) AND 3G(4) N.H. ACT IN LAC PROCEEDINGS NO. 549/2009 EXHIBIT P1 B TRUE COPY OF THE LAC NO.127/2009 EXHIBIT P1 C TRUE COPY OF THE LAC PROCEEDINGS IN LAC 160/2009 EXHIBIT P1 D TRUE COPY OF THE LAC NO. 260/2009 EXHIBIT P1(E). TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN LAC NO. 85/2009 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10.05.2012 NO. 41/2012 IN LAC NO. 172/09 (AGAINST EXT. P1) EXHIBIT P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 2.6.2012 NO. 67/2012 IN LAC. NO. 549/2009 (AGAINST EXT. P1(B)). EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD NO. 170/2012 DATED 6.10.2012 IN LAC. NO. 127/2009 (AGAINST EXT. P1(C)) EXHIBIT P2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD NO. 90/2013 DATED 16.2.2013 IN LAC NO. 160/2009 (AGAINST EXT.P1(D)) EXHIBIT P2 (D) TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD NO. 132/13 DATED 7.3.2013 IN LAC. NO. 280/90 EXHIBIT P2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD NO. 283/2013 DATED 18.4.2013 IN LAC NO. 85/2009 (AGAINST EXT. P1(E)) EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 17044/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **WP(C).No.19684 OF 2020** **8** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.6.2020.** **EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.6.2020.** **EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.6.2020. EXHIBIT P4 (C) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.6.2020. EXHIBIT P4(D) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.6.2020. EXHIBIT P4(E) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 06.06.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. LAC 111/09/A6 DATED 10.12.2019 WAS ISSUED TO KUTTAPPAN ACHARI IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.2.2020 IN W.A. NO. 1442/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO. LAC NO. 783/2009 DATED 22.2.2020.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE**