Allowed

U.v.Abraham v. the Arbitrator(N.H) and District Collector

Kerala HC12 Oct 2020WP(C)/17276/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This exclusionary writ petition challenged the denial of solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a National Highways Act acquisition. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Tarsem Singh and the Kerala High Court's judgment in Vinodkumar, the court directed the Special Deputy Collector to consider the petitioners' representation within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Special Deputy Collector to consider the petitioners' representation regarding solatium and interest and pass orders expeditiously within six months.

U.v.Abraham Vs the Arbitrator(N.H) and District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 20TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.17276 OF 2020(H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1 U.V.ABRAHAM, VELLAMUNDAKKATHOTTATHIL, HOUSE NO.9/82, PANACHERY, MUDIKKODE, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 652.

¶8

2 MARY ABRAHAM, W/O. ABRAHAM, VELLAMUNDAKKATHOTTATHIL, HOUSE NO.9/82, PANACHERY, MUDIKKODE, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680 652.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1 THE ARBITRATOR (N.H) AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶12

2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SLAO AND CALA, NHDP, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶13

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), PALAKKAD-679 001.

¶14

SRI. MATHEWS K PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL SRI. BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.17276 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The property owned by the petitioners herein was acquired for the purpose of development of Mannuthy - Wadakkumcherry Section of NH47 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

WP(C).No.17276 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

v. Vinodkumar and Another [2020 (2) KLT 399] to bring home their point

¶25

that the petitioners are also entitled to the solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent which has been forwarded to the 2nd respondent. Their prayer in this Writ Petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation within a time frame.

¶26

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.

¶27

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 1st respondent. He assured that the allotment of funds to settle the claims shall be done as per procedure, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶28

I have considered the submissions advanced. The Hon’ble Supreme

¶29

WP(C).No.17276 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

Court had occasion to hold as follows in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh case (Supra);

¶32

“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".

¶33

7. In Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur and Another v. Vinodkumar and Another [2020 (2) KLT 399], it was held thus:

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

WP(C).No.17276 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

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.

¶39

This Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

sru

¶44

WP(C).No.17276 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE L.A.C NO.1143/2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.401/2013 IN LAC NO.1143/2009 DATED 15/5/2013. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/3/2020 IN WPC NO.3333/2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE ARBITRATOR. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER NO. LAC.781/2009 DATED 22.2.2020.

¶49

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS:

¶50

/TRUE COPY/

¶51

P.A. TO JUDGE

U.v.Abraham v. the Arbitrator(N.H) and District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.v.Abraham v. the Arbitrator(N.H) and District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvet Jerome Vs State of Kerala

Perumatty Service Co-Op Bank Vs Sugunasekaran

Kallukadavu Muslim Jama- Ath Vs the District Collector

Mathew Sebastian, Vs Dr. K.C.Kurian

A.Bovas Vs the Arbitrator (N.H.) and District Collector

Highles Miranda Vs Philomina