Kerala High Court
Vinodkumar vs The Special Deputy Collector on 16 January, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 26TH POUSHA,
1946
WA NO. 112 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.9.2018 IN WP(C)
NO.25683 OF 2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
ANANTHARAMAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.LATE NELLAYIMADATHIL VISWANATHA IYER,
NELLAYI.P.O-680305, THRISSUR DT.
BY ADV K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (SLAO)
SLAO & COMPETENT AUTHORITY LA, NHDP, THRISSUR
682 020.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ARBITRATOR, THRISSUR - 682 020.
3 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI
- 110001.
*ADDL.R4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
(NHAI),PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, PALAKKAD.
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
2
*ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED IN
W.A.112/2019 AS PER ORDER DATED 26/11/2019 IN
I.A.1/2019 IN WA 112/2019.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE FOR R4
SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA FOR R4
OTHER PRESENT:
GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN,
SC FOR R4 SRI.B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2025, ALONG WITH WA.190/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 26TH POUSHA,
1946
WA NO. 190 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.9.2018 IN WP(C)
NO.23194 OF 2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
VINODKUMAR
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O LATE M CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, CHANDRA
VILLA, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683108.
BY ADV K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR
SLAO AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY LA, NHDP, THRISSUR-
682020.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR-ARBITRATOR,
ERNAKULAM-682030.
3 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW
DELHI-110001.
*ADDL.R4 PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
4
INDIA(NHAI),PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
UNIT,PALAKKAD.
* ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
26.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.1/2019 IN WA 190/2019.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC
SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA
SRI.B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN FOR R4
MS.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2025, ALONG WITH WA.112/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
5
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.112/2019, 190/2019]
Easwaran S., J.
Writ petitioners are the appellants. The challenge raised in the
writ petitions pertains to the constitutional validity of Section 3J of
the National Highways Act, 1956.
2. The brief facts for the disposal of the appeals are as
follows:
The subject matter of W.A.No.112/2019 is regarding the
acquisition of an extent of 202 sq.m. of land in Nellayi Village of
Mukundapuram Taluk under the National Highways Act, 1956. The
competent authority under the Act passed an award on 27.3.2007
awarding an amount of Rs.16,54,073/- as compensation. Ext.P1
dated 22.05.2007 is the notice of intimation to the
appellant/petitioner. In W.A.No.190/2019, an extent of 0.45 hectares
of land in survey No.49/136 of Aluva West Village was acquired under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. While the said
proceedings were pending, the competent authority issued Ext.P2
proceedings dated 11.5.2007 awarding an amount of Rs.73,93,100/-
as compensation in terms of the provisions contained under the
National Highways Act, 1956. Both the petitioners were denied the
benefit of solatium and interest on solatium as provided under the
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
provisions of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, therefore,
approached this Court in the writ petitions questioning the
constitutional validity of Section 3J of the National Highways Act,
1956. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petitions,
found that both the provisions, Sections 3G and 3J, are constitutional
and, therefore, declined the challenge and, consequently, dismissed
the writ petitions by judgment dated 18.9.2018. It is impugning the
said judgment, these intra-court appeals are preferred by the
petitioners.
3. Heard Sri.K.G.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Sri.B.G.Bidan Chandran, the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the National Highway
Authority of India (additional 4th respondent) and Smt.Sudhadevi, the
learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State.
4. Sri.K.G.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants, pointed out that the question as to whether
Section 3J of the National Highways Act is constitutional or not is no
longer res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union of India & Anr. V. Tarsem Singh & Ors [(2019) 9 SCC
304]. He would further point out that a Division Bench of this Court
in Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur & Anr. v. Vinodkumar & Anr
[2020 (2) KLT 399] dismissed the appeal preferred by the State and
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
held that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is
unconstitutional and directed the authorities to disburse the benefits
within a period of two months.
5. On the other hand, Sri.Bidan Chandran, learned
Standidng Counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority of
India, additional 4th respondent, would point out that the appellants
are not entitled to the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, especially since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunita Mehra
and Another v. Union of India and Others [(2019) 17 SCC 672] held
that the award of solatium and interest on solatium should be made
effective only to proceedings pending on the date of the High Court
order in Golden Iron & Steel Forging v. Union of India [2008 SCC
Online P&H 498], i.e. 28.3.2008, and that the concluded cases
should not be reopened. It is the specific case of Sri.Bidan Chandran
that the appellants were satisfied with the award passed by the
competent authority under the provisions of the National Highways
Act, 1956 and did not choose to prefer any application for referring
the dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of sub-Section (7) to Section
3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. In the absence of any
challenge to the award, it is the specific submission of the learned
counsel that the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court cannot
be given to the appellants/petitioners. Though the Supreme Court
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
in Tarsem Singh (supra) had granted the benefit to the petitioner(s)
therein despite the cut-off date fixed by the Supreme Court in Sunita
Mehra (supra), the same can be construed as one granted under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, cannot strictly
apply to the facts of the present case.
6. We have considered the rival submissions raised across
the bar.
7. The question which falls for our consideration is as to
whether the petitioners' case would fall within the purview of the
cut-off date fixed by the Supreme Court in Sunita Mehra (supra).
When we read the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunita Mehra
(supra), it is clear that the Supreme Court had issued directions that
the award of solatium and interest on solatium should be made
effective only to the proceedings pending on the date of the High
Court order in Golden Iron & Steel Forging (supra) and the date fixed
was 28.3.2008. We are not, however, impressed by the submissions
of the learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority
of India that merely because the award was not questioned by the
petitioners in appropriate proceedings under Section 3G of the Act,
they are not entitled to the benefits flowing out of the declaration of
law by the Apex Court. It is pertinent to mention that intimation
regarding passing of the award on 11.5.2007 was issued and that the
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
writ petitions were preferred before this Court on 19.8.2007 and
26.7.2007, respectively, questioning the constitutional validity of
Sections 3G and 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956. We must
also note that the petitioners having invoked their constitutional
remedy through the writ petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, cannot be expected to question the award
through the statutory mechanism under the National Highways Act,
1956, so long as Section 3J was in the statute. Therefore, as on the
date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunita Mehra
(supra), i.e. 11.8.2016, the petitioners were well within the cut-off
period fixed by the Supreme Court and the proceedings were
pending before the writ Court.
8. We must also note that the decision of the Supreme Court
in Sunita Mehra (supra) was pronounced on 11.8.2016, whereas the
writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on
18.9.2018 without noticing the binding law laid down by the
Supreme Court. We must also further notice that even on the date
when the learned Single Judge rendered the judgment dismissing the
writ petitions, Section 3J was already declared as unconstitutional
by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Golden Iron & Steel Forging (supra). Though the learned Single
Judge chose to disagree with the Division Bench decision of the
2025:KER:3545
WA Nos.112 & 190/2019
Punjab and Haryana High Court, subsequently, the Supreme Court
affirmed the view taken by the Division Bench and, therefore, the
learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petitions
ignoring the binding principle laid down by the Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, we are of the view that the
appellants are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the writ appeals are
allowed. Consequently, the writ petitions also would stand allowed.
Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is declared as
unconstitutional following the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in Sunita Mehra (supra) and Tarsem Singh (supra).
10. The additional 4th respondent shall calculate the solatium
and interest on solatium on the respective amounts covered by the
award dated 11.5.2007 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment and thereafter release the same to the respective
petitioners, within a further period of one month thereafter.
These writ appeals are ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.,
JUDGE
jg
