Uthaman K.K vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 17349 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 3RD BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 16430 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

     1        UTHAMAN K.K., AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMAN,
              RESIDING AT VRINDHAVAN, EDAKKADU P.O.,
              KADAMBUR, KANNUR- 670663.

     2        BHAGEERATHAN K.K., AGED 75 YEARS
              S/O. LATE RAMAN, RESIDING AT KALATHIL VALAPPIL,
              EDAKKADU P.O., KANNUR- 670663.

              BY ADV SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS


RESPONDENTS:

     1        UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
              GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
              TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.

     2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ARBITRATOR APPOINTED UNDER THE
              NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN-670002.

     3        THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
              L.A.(NH) UNIT NO.II, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN-670002.

     4        THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
              INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, MALAPARAMBA,
              KOZHIKODE-673009.

     5        THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS
              DEPARTMENT, BUILDING SECTION, KANNUR-670002.

              BY ADVS.
              K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
              P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
              K.SUDHINKUMAR
              SABU PULLAN
              GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
 WPC 16430/21
                                        2


             G.P M.H HANILKUMAR,
             SC MATHEWS K. PHILIP


      THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION      ON   25.08.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 16430/21
                                      3



                         JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stated to be the owners

of certain extents of garden land, in which a

residential building, bearing No.R.S.No.82/3B1

(New 82/10) of the Kadambur Village, is situated;

and they say that, on account of acquisition of

land by the National Highway Authority of India

(NHAI) for the purpose of construction of the

Pappinisserry-Muzhapilangad By-pass, the said

building is sought to be demolished.

2. The specific case of the petitioners is

that the valuation of the property has not been

properly done by the Competent Authority for Land

Acquisition (CALA) and that it has been done

incorrectly, by adopting a wrong plinth area and

without taking into account the value of materials

used for its construction, namely timber, bricks,

plumbing materials, electric materials etc. WPC 16430/21

3. The petitioners submit that they,

therefore, preferred Exts.P8 and P9 Arbitration

Requests before the 2nd respondent-District

Collector and pray that the same be directed to be

taken up and disposed of at the earliest. They

further say that since the NHAI is now attempting

to demolish the building, they have preferred

Exts.P11 and P13 applications before the

Arbitrator, seeking revaluation of the same; and

thus pray that the said Authority be directed to

consider these applications before the building is

demolished, because otherwise, its proper

valuation would become impossible.

4. I have heard Sri.Serji Joseph Thomas -

learned counsel for the petitioners;

Sri.P.Vijayakumar - learned Assistant Solicitor

General of India appearing for the 1st respondent;

Sri.Sudhinkumar K. - learned Standing Counsel for

the 4th respondent and Sri.M.H.Hanilkumar - learned

Special Government Pleader for respondents 2,3 and WPC 16430/21

4.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 4th

respondent - Sri.Sudhin Kumar, opposed the plea of

the petitioners by saying that the valuation of

the property can certainly be reconsidered by the

competent Authority, but that the measurement and

valuation of the building, as now sought for by

the petitioners, is untenable. He added that the

CALA has already valued the building and

therefore, that the petitioners cannot seek

anything more than what has been concluded by the

said Authority. He, therefore, prayed that this

Writ Petition be dismissed.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader

conceded that Exts.P11 and P13 applications are

still pending before the 2nd respondent and added

that if this Court is so inclined, the said

Authority can consider the same and issue

appropriate orders thereon without any avoidable

delay. He, however, pleaded that the said WPC 16430/21

Authority be given liberty to decide whether a

revaluation of the property and building is

necessary to be done, and if so, in what manner it

needs to be proceeded with. He, therefore, prayed

that this writ petition be ordered only on such

terms.

7. When I consider the afore submissions, it

becomes ineluctable that the petitioners have

already approached the 2nd respondent through

Exts.P11 and P13 applications and it is conceded

by the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th

respondent, that the same have been filed within

time and are competent. Obviously, therefore,

these applications will certainly have to be

considered by the 2nd respondent in terms of law.

8. That said, the question as to the

valuation of the property and building is an

aspect which will have to engage the mind of the

Arbitrator before the construction is demolished

because, otherwise, if the said Authority is to WPC 16430/21

find in favour of the petitioners, a revaluation

will be frustrated.

9. In the afore circumstances, I am of the

firm view that the parties must be directed to

appear before the 2nd respondent on a particular

date, so that the said Authority can then decide

whether a further valuation of the building is

necessary; and if so, to complete the same within

a time frame, before it is demolished, so as to

enable the NHAI to complete construction of the

Highway.

In summation, I direct the petitioners to

mark appearance before the 2nd respondent at 11

a.m. on 02.09.2021; on which day, the said

Authority will either hear them, or fix another

date for such purpose and then proceed to dispose

of Exts.P11 and P13 applications as expeditiously

as is possible.

Needless to say, the building in question

will not be demolished until the afore exercise is WPC 16430/21

completed and the resultant order communicated to

the petitioner.

Sd/-

RR                             DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                    JUDGE
 WPC 16430/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16430/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1        TRUE COPY OF LETTER REF. L.A.C.NO.527

(B)/A2 DATED .....10.2020 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO. REF.

A.6/2012(1) (LAC NO.5271 (E)) DATED 29.3.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS PROPERTY.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.REF.

A.6/2012(1) (LAC NO.5271(F)) DATED 29.3.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF 2ND PETITIONERS PROPERTY.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.REF.

L.A.C./5271 (E) DATED 11.6.2021 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. REF.

L.A.C./5271 (F) DATED 11.6.2021 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C3/39/2020/596/2021 DATED 21.6.2021 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C2/39/2020/596/2021 DATED 21.6.2021 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION PETITION DATED 18.6.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION PETITION DATED 18.6.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. WPC 16430/21

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 3 E (1) OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT 1956 DATED 15.6.2021 AFFIXED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.8/2021 IN A.P.NO.952/2021 DATED 7.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.9/2021 IN A.P.NO.952/2021 DATED 7.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.10/2021 IN A.P.NO.950/2021 DATED 7.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.11/2021 IN A.P.NO.950/2021 DATED 7.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 30.6.2021 AFFIXED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 30.6.2021 AFFIXED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.7.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

WPC 16430/21

Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.2.2021 IN WP(C) NO.3315 OF 2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.