V.M. Mathew vs The National Highway Authority Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2753 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

                                 &

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

      MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942

                        Arb.A.No.60 OF 2018

   AGAINST THE ORDER IN OPARB 264/2013 DATED 08-08-2018 OF III
               ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

             V.M. MATHEW,
             AGED 67, S/O MATHEW,VENGALLUR HOUSE,
             PATHAZHAMKUNDU,POOMALA.P.O,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT-680651.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
             SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

      1      THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
             NEW DELHI,REP.BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,(NATIONAL
             HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA), PALAKKAD-678001.

      2      THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
             OFFICER, LAND ACQUISITION(NATIONAL HIGHWAY),
             THRISSUR-680020.

      3      THE STATE OF KERALA
             REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR,
             CIVIL STATION,THRISSUR-680001.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY
             R2-3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY

     THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-
      2020, THE COURT ON 25-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Arb.A.60/2018                      :2:




                          JUDGMENT

Haripal, J.

This is an appeal preferred under Section 37(1)(b) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

The case of the appellant is that 0.0336 hectares of land in

Sy.No.318/14B of Ollukkara village in Thrissur taluk owned and

possessed by him was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of

developing National Highway-47. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer awarded him a total compensation of Rs.7,19,040/- towards

compensation of the land. The SLAO fixed compensation at the rate of

Rs.2,14,000/- per Are, basing on document No.2073/2007 dated

25.04.2007 of Ollukkara Sub Registry. Aggrieved by the same, he filed

an arbitration petition under Section 3(c)(5) of the National Highways

Act seeking enhancement of compensation. According to him, land

value fixed by the SLAO was grossly inadequate. He claimed Rs.10

lakhs per cent, considering the importance of the location. The District

Collector being the Arbitrator, by the award dated 27.12.2012 enhanced

the land value to Rs.5,88,000/- per Are, i.e. at Rs.2,38,057/- per cent.

Arb.A.60/2018 :3:

While enhancing compensation the Arbitrator considered the report of

the District level Arbitral Committee appointed under Section 27(1)(a)

of the Act. Thus the appellant was found entitled to get additional

amount of Rs.12,56,640/- as compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the award of the Arbitrator, the appellant

moved the District Court, Thrissur with Arbitration O.P. No.264/2013,

under Section 34 of the Act. The learned III Additional District Judge

considered the matter and, having regard to the constraints under

Section 34 of the Act, declined to interfere. The court noticed that an

award of the Arbitrator can be challenged on the grounds enumerated in

Section 34 of the Act and that it cannot be set aside merely on the

ground that compensation awarded is insufficient. That order is now

impugned in this appeal.

3. The learned Additional District Judge cannot be faulted for

taking such a view which is in tune with the scheme of the Act. We

have not be persuaded to take a different view. We concur with the

finding. Today when taken up for hearing, to our pointed question as

to whether the appellant will be contented if the court allows a limited Arb.A.60/2018 :4:

relief of granting solatium and interest, as provided under Section

23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of the proviso to Section

28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Such a query was put bearing in

mind the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and

another v. Tarsem Singh and others [AIR 2019 SC 4689], which is

followed by a Division Bench of this Court in which we were parties,

reported in Eliyamma and another v. Deputy Collector, Palakkad

and others [2021 (1) KHC 145 DB]. The learned counsel answered in

the affirmative and thus we proceed to dispose of the appeal.

4. It is the common case that a piece of land belonging to the

appellant comprised in Sy.No.318/14B of Ollukkara village in Thrissur

taluk was acquired for the development of National Highway-47 and he

was granted compensation basing on the assessment made by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied by the compensation

granted by the SLAO, the appellant moved for enhancing compensation

which ended in arbitral award dated 27.12.2012 of the District

Collector. The District Collector granted enhancement of compensation

as stated supra. It is evident from the arbitral award appended to the Arb.A.60/2018 :5:

appeal that no amount was paid towards solatium or interest thereon.

That cannot be faulted since the National Highways Act does not

provide for granting solatium or interest, as payable under the Land

Acquisition Act. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the decision quoted supra. The Court declared 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

proviso to Section 28 will apply to acquisitions made under the

National Highways Act. To that extent, the Apex Court held that

Section 3J of the National Highways Act is violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution and declared it unconstitutional.

5. That has become the law of the land under Article 141 of

the Constitution. In other words, the benefit is liable to be granted in all

the pending claims for enhancement of compensation under the

National Highways Act which are live on the date of declaration by the

Apex Court. Thus, even in the absence of specific plea or proof, the

appellant is entitled to get solatium and interest on solatium as provided

in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest in terms of proviso to Section 28 Arb.A.60/2018 :6:

of the Land Acquisition Act.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent. The respondents are

directed to quantify the amounts on the above lines and pay the same to

the appellant at the earliest. No costs.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL JUDGE

okb/28.10.2020 //True copy// P.S. to Judge