Kerala High Court
Seena Emmanuel vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 34638 OF 2023
PETITIONER
SEENA EMMANUEL,AGED 58 YEARS
W/O EMMANUEL THOMAS, KAPPIL HOUSE,
KARIMBA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678597
BY ADVS.MANU VYASAN PETER
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN,P.B.KRISHNAN
SABU GEORGE,B.ANUSREE
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAVAN 1,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI)
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, PALAKKAD,
ARMUGHAM COLONY, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, PIN - 678007
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
5 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA NH)
COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION (CALA),
GREENFIELD NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
BY ADV KRISHNA T C
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.34638 of 2023 2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P.(C) No.34638 of 2023
.................................................................
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 BVR and
for a direction to the respondents to include an additional category of
property with National Highway access in the Basis Valuation Report of
Karimba-1 Village, Mannarkkad Taluk for the purpose of acquisition in
respect of National Highway 966 (Greenfield).
2. It is averred that the petitioner is the absolute owner of 5.68 acres of
land comprised in survey nos.173, 170/1A 1, 170/1A2, 176/2A and 176/2B
of Karimba-I Village in Mannarkkad Taluk of Palakkad District, which is
obtained as per Ext.P1 settlement deed. The property situated on the
western side of the petitioner's property is owned by her husband, which
was obtained as per Ext.P2 sale deed. The contention of the petitioner is
that both the properties are lying contiguously as a compact plot and in the
absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and her husband.
Ext.P4 BVR was prepared in respect of Karimba-1 Village wherein only
four categories of properties were shown. The specific contention of the
petitioner is that in Ext.P4 BVR there is no category prescribed as property
which has got access to the National Highway, whereas in respect of other
Villages, as evident from Ext.P5, an additional category has been
prescribed as 'Category E Wetland-Nilam with NH road access'. The
contention of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner is also
having National Highway access and since such a category has not been
provided in Ext.P4 BVR, petitioner is put to serious prejudice. It is in the
said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that
since the award has already been passed, the remedy available to the
petitioner is to approach the Arbitrator under Section 3G of the National
Highways Act, 1956.
4. Petitioner relies on the judgment in Lillykutty v. State of Kerala,
2012 KHC 751 and contend that while determining compensation, if the
properties of the husband and wife are lying together contiguously and
that the husband and wife are enjoying the properties as common holding
of the family, it should be included in one and the same category for
fixation of compensation. The contention of the petitioner is that the same
has not been done in the present case. Petitioner submits that since
award has already been passed she may be permitted to raise all these
contentions before the Arbitrator and a direction may be issued to the
Arbitrator to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding
Ext.P4 BVR wherein no category has been provided for properties having
National Highway access.
Therefore, it is ordered that if the petitioner approaches the
Arbitrator and raise all these contentions including the objection regarding
Ext.P4 BVR, the Arbitrator shall make necessary enquiry as to whether the
property is having National Highway access and as to whether the benefit
of the judgment of this Court in Lillykutty's case cited supra could be
extended to the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon
dehors the fact that in Ext.P4 BVR no such category has been provided as
property having access to the National Highway.
With the abovesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34638/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 7219 OF
2006 OF SRO MANNARKKAD DATED 23.11.2006
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 5288 OF
2003 OF SRO MANNARKKAD DATED 09.10.2003
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY-SKETCH OF THE
PROPERTY PREPARED BY LAND SURVEYOR
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. B1-
411/2023 OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA NH)
AND CALA, PALAKKAD DATED 20.05.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. B1-
411/2023 OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA NH)
AND CALA, PALAKKAD DATED 07.06.2023
