Disposed

Razak K. v. National Highway Authority of India

Kerala HC29 Nov 2022WP(C)/32380/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged discrepancies in land acquisition, compensation extent, and 6% deduction under the National Highways Act. The High Court held the matter required arbitration post-award and directed the petitioner to file appropriate applications before the Arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Directed to prefer application before Arbitrator for valuation of actual property extent within ten days; Arbitrator to complete proceedings within ten months. Writ petition disposed.

Razak K. Vs National Highway Authority of India — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 32380 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAZAK K. AGED 67 YEARS S/O.ABDU, RUBY COTTAGE, THIKKODI, KOZHIKODE - 673 529.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI NAVEEN.T SRI CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI V.S.ABHISHEK SRI BIJI A MANIKOTH SRI SHIBU JOSEPH KOTTAYIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.

¶11

2 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY & SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (LAND ACQUISITION), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001.

¶12

3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAY), KOILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 305.

¶13

4 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 305.

¶14

5 THE TALUK SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE, KOILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 305.

¶15

BY ADV SRI MATHEWS K.PHILIP (SC) SRI S.MANU, DSGI SRI. BIMAL K. NATH, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C)No.32380/2022

T.R. RAVI, J.

W.P.(C)No.32380 of 2022

¶21

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2022

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Admit. DSGI takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.

¶24

Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 3 to 5.

¶25

2 . The petitioner is the owner of 17 Ares and 22 Sq.M. of property in Re-Sy.No.81/89 ( Re-Sy.No.81/2B) in Thikkody Village, Quilandy Taluk in Kozhikode District. According to the petitioner, an extent of 7.45 cents was taken possession of for the purpose of widening of National Highway 66, under two parcels of properties. Ext.P9 award passed only says about compensation for 0.0257 Ha (6.351 cents). The grievance of the petitioner is that only an extent of 6.993 cents was notified for acquisition as per Exts.P1 and P2 notices. It is hence contended that excess land has been taken without compensation. It is also contended that there is a mistake in the survey number mentioned in Ext.P1 notice and that the 6% amount out of the total compensation awarded ought not to have been deducted towards demolition charges. Highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has approached the 2 nd respondent with Ext.P4 representation. The 2 nd respondent forwarded the same to

¶26

W.P.(C)No.32380/2022

¶27

¶28

the 4 th respondent. Regarding 6% deduction, the 4 th respondent has directed the 3 rd respondent to redress the grievance.

¶29

3 . The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to depute the 5 th respondent Taluk Surveyor or any expert body to measure the exact extent of property acquired from the petitioner; to direct respondents 1 and 2 to rectify the discrepancies relating to Re-survey number in Ext.P1 and to take steps to correct the same as Sy.No.81/2 (81/2B), instead of 81/3B; to direct respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation amount due to the petitioner as against the property acquired under Ext.P1 notice after carrying out necessary corrections relating to Re-survey number, to direct respondents 1 and 2 to include 0.45 cents of land which was excluded from the purview of Exts.P1 and P2 notices and to pay compensation and to repay 6% amount deducted towards “demolition charges” and for other consequential reliefs.

¶30

4 . Going by the provisions contained in the National Highways Act, once the award is passed, the matter has to be taken up before the Arbitrator for appropriate relief. Section 3G(7) of the National Highways Act, 1956 gives ample power to the Arbitrator to consider appropriate value to be fixed as compensation. Once the matter comes before the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator is also having the

¶31

W.P.(C)No.32380/2022

¶32

¶33

powers available under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act for short) which permits issuance of interlocutory orders. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to his remedy before the Arbitrator.

¶34

5 . The petitioner is directed to prefer an appropriate application before the Arbitrator under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner may also prefer appropriate interlocutory application before the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the 1996 Act, seeking relief of valuation of actual extent of the property. The application shall be filed within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Arbitrator shall consider the interlocutory application and pass orders at the earliest and thereafter proceed to finalise the arbitration application. The entire arbitration proceedings shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within ten months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI

JUDGE

dsn

W.P.(C)No.32380/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32380/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE UN-DATED NOTICE, L.A.C. NO.26 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM ON 27/8/2021, DIRECTING HIM TO SURRENDER 0.0026 HECTARES OF LAND.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE,L.A.C.NO.632/19 DATED 28/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DIRECTING HIM TO SURRENDER 0.0257 HECTARES OF LAND.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION AND NON- ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE NO.52712394 DATED 22/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIKKODY VILLAGE OFFICE.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2/10/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.LAC.26/19(1) DATED 13/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.TLKKOY/G2/41/2022 DATED 18/5/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C- 664/2020 DATED 22/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B.528/20 DATED 1/9/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.A2-2061/21 DATED 5-7-2021 OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION (NHAI), KOZHIKODE.

Razak K. v. National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Razak K. v. National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moyan Ali, Vs Thennala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, No. F 720

Lissy Babu Vs State of Kerala

Suja C. Vs Sale Officer

Board of Management of the Kandala Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.T-197 Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(G)

Uco Bank Vs State of Kerala

Kayanadan Stores Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam