Kerala High Court
Muneer vs District Collector on 30 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 15258 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 15258 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
MUNEER,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, POTTARATH HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM-679571.
BY ADVS.
K.SUJAI SATHIAN
MARY LIYA SABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM/ARBITRATOR UNDER THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY ACT,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676505.
2 COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
LAND ACQUISITION (NH) 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 RAOAD TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW
DELHI-110001.
SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, SC
SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15258 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession
of property having an extent of about 9.71 Ares in Sy.No.115/1A (New Survey
No.115/12) of Kuttippuram Amsom, Tirur Taluk. He contends that out of the
total extent of 9.71 Ares, an extent of 3.85 Ares together with a building
situated therein 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 filed Ext.P2 application for enhancement of compensation before the
Arbitrator, the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner asserts that he was
running an oil mill in the building situated in the acquired portion and a major
portion of the building was acquired. He states that for a fair determination of
the value of the building, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 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.P3 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 9.71 Ares
of property in Survey No.115/1A (New Survey No.115/12) of
Kuttippuram Amsom and Desom of Tirur Taluk 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-P3 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-P2 and pass
orders thereon immediately within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble
Court."
2. Sri.Sujai Sathian K., 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.P2 and P3, the requisitioning
authority has not been 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 has preferred Ext.P2 application before the Arbitrator seeking
enhancement. He has also filed Ext.P3 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.P3 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.P3 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 application has not been demolished as on the date of pronouncement
of this judgment.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15258/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO. D
1819/2021/TIR/341 DATED 03/05/2021 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 16/07/2021.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 16/07/2021.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07/07/2021 IN WPC NO.13452/2021.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL
