Disposed

V.M.Ravi v. the Deputy Collector

Kerala HC15 Sept 2020WP(C)/18688/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for solatium and interest in land acquired for NH widening. Relying on Supreme Court striking down Section 3J of National Highways Act, Court directed respondents to consider representation and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider Ext. P3 representation and pass orders within two months of receipt of this judgment.

V.M.Ravi Vs the Deputy 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

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.18688 OF 2020(I)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

V.M.RAVI AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN, VALIYAVEETI HOUSE, THOTTAPADY , MANNUTHY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN-680 651

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN SRI.ABEL ANTONY SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR SLAO AND CALA, NHDP, THRISSUR, PIN-620 680

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND THE ARBITRATOR (LANH) THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.

¶12

3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI), PALAKKAD, PIN-678 007.

¶13

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

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.18688 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The property owned by the petitioner herein was acquired for the purpose of widening the Mannuthy- Wadakkumcherry section of the National Highway invoking the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner challenged the same before the Arbitrator. Though the amount of compensation was modified, no sum was granted towards solatium and interest on solatium.

¶19

The petitioner contends 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.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that since the entitlement of the landowners for solatium and interest having been declared by the Apex Court, the petitioner cannot be denied such benefits. Raising all these contentions,

¶21

WP(C).No.18688 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 1st respondent and Exhibit P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. His prayer in this Writ Petition is to direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation within a time frame.

¶24

I have heard Sri. K.S.Bharathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mathews K Philip, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

¶25

5. 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);

¶26

“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".

¶27

6. In Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur and Another v.

¶28

Vinodkumar and Another [2020 (2) KLT 399], it was held thus:

¶29

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

¶30

WP(C).No.18688 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

In the light of the precedents above, I am of the opinion that necessary directions can be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P3 representation filed by the petitioner. Before passing orders, the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent or a person authorized by him shall be heard. Orders shall be passed by the respondents expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

This Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

¶39

WP(C).No.18688 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.C NO.100/09 DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.234/2012 DATED 17.11.2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

V.M.Ravi v. the Deputy Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M.Ravi v. the Deputy 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

U.K.Santhoshkumar Vs City Police Commissioner

Kalathingal Eshaque, Vs the District Collector

Jithin Shankar K. Vs the District Police Chief, Kozhikode

Khadeeja Achambamat Vs the Special Thahsildar (Lr)

C.P.Theethu Vs the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

Janaki Vs the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)