C.J.Antony vs National Highway Authority Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4147 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944

                             WP(C) NO. 11956 OF 2022

PETITIONERS:

     1         C.J.ANTONY
               AGED 74 YEARS
               S/O.JOHN, CHERUVALLIKATTU, CMC -31, ARTHUNKAL ROAD, CHERTHALA,
               ALAPPUZHA - 688524.

     2         MERSAMMA ANTONY
               W/O. C.J. ANTONY, CHERUVALLIKATTU, CMC -31, ARTHUNKAL ROAD,
               CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688524.

               BY ADVS.
               S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
               SNEHA ROSE



RESPONDENTS:

     1         NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
               REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER CUM PROJECT DIRECTOR, NO.
               36/414(III), NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALKULANGARA,
               TRIVANDRUM - 695024.

     2         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688001.

     3         DEPUTY COLLECTOR(SPL)
               LA(NH), COMPETENT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688001.

     4         SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
               O/O. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LANH, CHERTHALA - 688524.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN-SR.G.P.   AND SRI E.C KURIKOSE - S.C.




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 11956 OF 2022

                                      2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioners allege that the Award issued with respect to a

property acquired from them does not take into account the proper

valuation of the residential building situated therein. They say that,

therefore, they have preferred Ext.P6 representation before the

Deputy Collector, and prays that same be directed to be taken up and

disposed of without any further delay.

2. However, when this matter was called today,

Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, conceded

that Ext.P6 cannot be seen to be a statutory application and that his

clients have now preferred Ext.P8 Arbitration Petition before the

competent Arbitrator, under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the 'NH

Act'. He prayed that, therefore, said Authority may be directed to take

up Exhibit P8 application and consider his clients' plea regarding

valuation of the building as a preliminary objection, before it is finally

demolished.

3. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader

submitted that if the petitioners have preferred Ext.P8 before the

District Collector - who is the competent statutory Arbitrator, she will

not stand in the way of the same being directed to be considered in WP(C) NO. 11956 OF 2022

terms of law.

4. Sri.E.C.Kuriakose - learned Standing Counsel for the

National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), submitted that he does

not stand in the way of Ext.P8 being taken up and disposed of by the

statutory Arbitrator; but that while doing so, the competent official of

the NHAI also may be directed to be heard.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this writ petition to

the limited extent of directing the District Collector - who is the

competent statutory Arbitrator, to take up Ext.P8 application and

decide the question of valuation of the building as a preliminary issue,

after hearing the petitioners as also the competent official of the

NHAI, thus leading to an apposite proceedings to be issued thereon.

Until such time as this exercise is completed and the afore

proceedings communicated to the petitioners, action to demolish the

building shall stand deferred; however, making it clear that

subsequent action can be taken forward in terms of the 'NH Act' and

other applicable provisions.

Needless to say, after the proceedings are so issued, the

statutory Arbitrator shall proceed to dispose of Ext.P8 finally, in terms

of law, as expeditiously as is possible and leave liberty to the

petitioners to approach this Court after a period of eight months, if it WP(C) NO. 11956 OF 2022

is not so done, for fixing a time frame, which will be then considered

taking note of the relevant circumstances.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 11956 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11956/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 5.2.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DETAILS OF THE AWARD RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE BUILDING PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE BUILDING SUPERVISOR,

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.03.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 15/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION PETITION DATED 1/4/2022 PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER, BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.