Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shafi vs The District Collector on 7 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 13451 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13451 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED SHAFI,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. THULANADAN KOYA HAJI, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM,
PARAVANNOOR DESOM, P.O. KALPAKANCHERY, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676551.
BY ADVS.
K.SUJAI SATHIAN
R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
MARY LIYA SABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM/ARBITRATOR UNDER THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY ACT,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676505.
2 COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
LAND ACQUISITION (N.H.), MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676505.
3 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, VII/511-B,
NEYTHELI-MAVELIPURAM ROAD, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.
4 UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-
110001.
WP(C) NO. 13451 OF 2021 2
SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, SC
SMT.AMMINIKUTTY K, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13451 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he along with his four associates are the
absolute owners in title and possession of property having an extent of about
27.66 cents in Re.Sy.No.169/2C of Kurumbathoor Village. A multi-storied
commercial building was constructed by the petitioner in a portion of the
property. He contends that an extent of about 3.88 Ares of property and a
portion of the multi-storied building was acquired invoking the provisions of
the National Highways Act, 1956 for the purpose of constructing the National
Highway No.66. Ext.P1 award was passed and the property was taken
possession of under Section 3E of the Act. Being aggrieved by the quantum
of compensation awarded, the petitioner along with the co-owners filed
Ext.P3 application for enhancement before the Arbitrator, the 1st respondent
herein. The petitioner asserts that the portion of the building has not been
demolished to date. He states that for a fair determination of the value of
the building, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before the Arbitrator
seeking to appoint a competent expert to inspect the building and to value
the same. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is
refusing to take up Ext.P4 application and pass orders thereon. It is in the
afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking
the following reliefs:
" a) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the 1st respondent to appoint an expert for properly
assessing the value of the three storied building situated in 11.198 Ares
[27.66 cents] of property in Re.Sy.No.169/2C of Kurumbathoor Village in the
interest of justice.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit-P4 prior to
demolition of the acquired building as per Exhibit-P1 award and to pass
orders thereon expeditiously.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit-P3 and pass orders
thereon immediately within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
2. Sri.R.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that though possession of the property was taken, the
portion of the building has not been demolished to date.
3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that if
the property has not been demolished, there cannot be any impediment in
considering the said application on its merits.
4. Sri.Mathews K Philip, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the National Highway submitted that in Exts.P3 and P4, the requisitioning
authority is not seen made a party. He submitted that the requisitioning
authority may also be heard at the time of consideration of the application.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that the
petitioner herein as well as the other co-owners have preferred Ext.P3 before
the Arbitrator seeking enhancement. They have also filed Ext.P4 application
for appointing a competent expert to assess the value of the building. The
learned counsel submits that the building is still intact and has not been
demolished. In that view of the matter, necessary directions can be issued to
consider Ext.P4 application and take a decision on its merits in an expeditious
manner.
In the result, this Writ Petition will stand disposed of with a direction to
the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P4 application and take a decision, with
notice to the petitioner, the requisitioning authority as well as the affected
parties if any, expeditiously, in any event within a period of three weeks from
the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The directions issued as
above shall be operative only if the building, which is the subject matter of
Ext.P3 appeal, has not been demolished as on the date of pronouncement of
a copy of the judgment.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
DSV/7.7.21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13451/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.
D.1510/2021/TIR/1798 DATED 22/04/2021 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 28/04/2021.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHER CO-OWNERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 29/06/2021.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHER CO-OWNERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 29/06/2021.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL
