High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-11-06Dismissed, writ petition disposed of with no co...

Venkitnarayanan and Others v. District Collector, Collectorate, Civil Lines, Ayyanthole, Thrissur; Project Director, National Highway Authority of India; Special Deputy Collector, SLAO, NHDP, Thrissur

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.17930 of 2014(M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2020-11-06
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Dismissed, writ petition disposed of with no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

VENKITANARAYANAN
VAANCHI
T.P. VENKITARAMAN
T.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN

Respondents

The District Collector, Collectorate, Civil Lines, Ayyanthole, Thrissur-680001
The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Chandranagar, Palakkad-678001
The Competent Authority, Special Deputy Collector, SLAO, NHDP, Thrissur-680020

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V.M.Syam Kumar
• Smt. Kripa Elizabeth Mathews
• Smt. C.B.Suma Devi
• Sri. Suresh Samuel

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Thomas Antony

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, land owners whose properties in East Chalakudy Village were acquired for widening National Highway-47, filed this writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash Exts. P2–P5 communications issued by the District Collector and mandamus to have their compensation enhanced under Sections 3G(6) and 3G(7) of the National Highways Act, 1956. They also sought a declaration that they should be treated at par with landowners in Exts. P6 and P7 awards, and a declaration that the Limitation Act does not apply to arbitration under Section 3G(5). They further prayed that when an application invoking Section 3G(5) is filed, the first respondent must dispose of it in accordance with law, particularly Sections 3G(6) and (7). The matter touched on arbitration O.P.s and the question of time-bar. On 22.10.2020, the court noted Leela K. v. District Collector and Arbitrator and others, ILR 2015 (2) Kerala 745, where the Division Bench held that the right to sue accrues when the amount is determined under 3G(1) and that arbitration under 3G(5) must be filed within three years from that determination, failing which the claim may be rejected by the Arbitrator. Relying on that precedent, the court found the petitions' 2013 arbitration applications time-barred and declined to interfere with Exts. P2–P5, dismissing the petition with no order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(1), 3G(5), 3G(6), 3G(7), 3H(2)Limitation Act, 1963

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Right to sue accrues when amount is determined under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act
Arbitration under Section 3G(5) must be invoked within three years of such determination
If no timely steps are taken, the Arbitrator may reject the claim as barred by limitation
Arbitration is a statutory remedy parallel to a suit

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners sought certiorari to quash Exts. P2–P5; mandamus to enhance compensation under NH Act 3G(6)-(7); seek parity with Exts. P6–P7 award; argued that Limitation Act does not apply to arbitration under 3G(5); urged disposal in accordance with 3G(6)-(7). They relied on Leela K. decision to argue that right to sue accrues when amount is determined and that arbitration must be pursued within three years.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended the petition is barred by limitation; arbitration under 3G(5) must be invoked within three years of determination; Exts. P2–P5 should stand; reliance on Leela K. to show time-bar; writ petitions cannot override statutory limits; prayed for dismissal.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Leela K. v. District Collector and Arbitrator and others	ILR 2015 (2) Kerala 745	Positive	Used as binding precedent to hold that right to sue accrues when compensation is determined under 3G(1) and that arbitration under 3G(5) must be filed within three years, making 2013 applications time-barred.

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 Venkitnarayanan and Others v. District Collector, Collectorate, Civil Lines, Ayyanthole, Thrissur; Project Director, National Highway Authority of India; Special Deputy Collector, SLAO, NHDP, Thrissur 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.17930 OF 2014(M)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**VENKITANARAYANAN**| |---|---| ||**THEKKEDATHU MADOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,**| ||**MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**VAANCHI**| ||**THEKKEDATHU MADOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,**| ||**MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**T.P. VENKITARAMAN**| ||**THEKKEDATHU MADOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,**| ||**MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**T.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN**| ||**THEKKEDATHU MADOM, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE,**| ||**MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR**| ||**SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS**| ||**SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI**| ||**SRI.SURESH SAMUEL**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680001.** -2- W.P.(C). No. 17930 of 2014 - **2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD-678001.** - **3 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SLAO, NHDP, THRISSUR-680020. R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT VIDHYA A.C- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- W.P.(C). No. 17930 of 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, who are stated to be land owners within East Chalakkudy Village, which were acquired by the Central Government for widening of National Highway-47, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 communications issued by the 1[st] respondent; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to consider and dispose of the application for enhancement of compensation preferred by the petitioner as envisaged under Sections 3G (6) and (7) of the National Highways Act, 1956; a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to be treated similarly as the land owners in Exts.P6 and P7 award; a declaration that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act; and a declaration that when an application is preferred invoking Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, the 1[st] respondent is bound to dispose of the same in accordance with law the stipulations in Sections 3G -4- W.P.(C). No. 17930 of 2014 ## (6) and (7). 2. On 15.07.2014, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 2[nd] respondent. 3. A counter statement has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 30.09.2014. 4. On 22.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in **Leela K. v. District Collector and Arbitrator and others [ILR 2015 (2) Kerala 745]** . 5. By order dated 05.11.2020, this writ petition was directed to be listed along with the Judge's papers in W.P.(C) No.28554 of 2013. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents and -5- W.P.(C). No. 17930 of 2014 also the learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and after perusing the Judge's papers in W.P.(C) No.28554 of 2013, this Court finds that though, as per the description of Exts.P1 to P4 applications in the index of W.P.(C) No.28554 of 2013, those applications filed by the petitioners before the 1[st] respondent are dated '21.02.2008', a mere perusal of those documents, which are available at page Nos.11 to 18 of that writ petition, would show that those applications were filed only in the year 2013, since as per the cause title, Exts.P1 to P4 applications are Arbitration O.Ps of the year 2013. 8. In **Leela K. v. District Collector and Arbitrator and others** , **[ILR 2015 (2) Kerala 745]** a Division Bench of this Court held that the right to sue accrued when the amount is determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) of Section 3G of the National Highways Act. If the parties -6- W.P.(C). No. 17930 of 2014 desire to proceed for arbitration, they have to file an application for referring the dispute for arbitration in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 3G, which is akin to filing a suit within three years from the date when the amount is determined by the competent authority and informed to the owner. If no such steps are taken within the said period, the Arbitrator is entitled to reject the claim as barred by limitation. 9. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision, conclusion is irresistible that no interference is warranted on the decision taken by the 1[st] respondent in Exts.P2 to P5, since the applications made by the petitioner in the year 2013 are barred by limitation. 10. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same s accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** das -7- W.P.(C). No. 17930 of 2014 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 3-1-2014 IN WPC NO. 28554 OF 2013 (T).** **EXHIBIT P2 P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2-5-2014 BEARING NO. E6-LAC 1081/06 K. CHALAKUDY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3 P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 29-11-13 BEARING NO. L.A.C. E6 38619/2011(1081/06) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4 P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29-11-2013 BEARING NO. LAC E6-274/06E6.38619/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 P5.COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29-11-13 BEARING NO. L.A.C. 1081/06E638619/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 P6. COPY OF THE AWARD NO. 137 OF 2011 IN LAC NO. 119 OF 2007 DTD. 14-9-2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 P7. COPY OF THE SAID AWARD BEARING NO. 94 OF 2014 IN LAC NO. 276 OF 2006 DTD. 2-4-2014.** **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD BEARING NO.LAC 1081/06 ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE NOTICE DTD.18.02.2008 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3H(2) OF THE ACT** -8- W.P.(C). No. 17930 of 2014 **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD BEARING LAC NO.273/06 ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM THE 2ND AND 3RD PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD BEARING LAC NO.1078/06 ISSUED WITH RESPECT TOTHE PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM THE 4TH PETITIONER.**