Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Vidya Ramaswamy, D/o.Ramaswamy – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) No. 6312 of 2021
Decided on : 16-09-2021
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, - Section 64 - National Highway Act, 1956 - Section 3(G)E - Acquisition of Land - Seeking enhancement of compensation – Amounts - Coalescing interplay of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and National Highway Act, 1956 in computation of compensation payable consequent to acquisition of property by National Highway Authority of India is presented in facts of Court case and being an aspect which is not often correctly understood by owners/claimants of acquired properties requires to be notified in public domain through a declaration of Court.
Finding of the Court: District Collector would act only under provisions of “RFCTLARR Act” does not seem to have been advised to petitioners and their above impression was certainly plausible because in CALA notified their counsel that decision on their request for escalation of amounts under Award can be taken only by District Collector under Section 3G(5) of NHAI Act, but without clarifying that will be done exclusively under mandate of “RFCTLARR Act” - Court Find no reason to deny petitioners an opportunity to invoke their legitimate remedy and presumably knowing mind of Court, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, submitted that if Court is reserving such liberty to petitioners they may be directed to approach District Collector without any further delay.
Result: Writ petition Allowed
JUDGMENT :
The coalescing interplay of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “RFCTLARR Act” for short), and National Highway Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NH Act' for short), in computation of the compensation payable, consequent to acquisition of property by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), is presented in the facts of this case; and this being an aspect which is not often correctly understood by the owners/claimants of the acquired properties, requires to be notified in public domain through a declaration of this Court.
2. Very often, parties who have suffered acquisition, approach this Court apprehending that they will be subjected to a raw deal in computation of the compensation eligible to them, because it is likely to be done under the NHAI Act and not under the “RFCTLARR Act” . This, however, appears to be misplaced, as I will presently explain in this judgment, after placing on record an apercus of the constitutive facts involved.
3. The petitioners are stated to be the owners of certain properties which have been acquired under the requisition of the NHAI and they say that an Award has been issued by the “Competent Authority for Land Acquisition” (CALA), as per the provisions of Section 3(G) of the NH Act.
4. The petitioners say that going by Ext.P1 notification of the Government of India, dated 28.08.2015, compensation is required to be computed exclusively as per the provisions of the “RFCTLARR Act”; but that when they requested for reference of the Award for enhancement of compensation to the competent Authority under its ambit, the respondents are proposing to do so under the provisions of Section 3(G) of the “NH Act”, by causing such reference to the District Collector. The petitioners say that this is illegal and unlawful because the reference can be made only under the provisions of Section 64 of the “RFCTLARR Act” and therefore, that it should reach the competent District Court and not the District Collector.
5. The petitioners thus pray that the competent respondents be directed to refer the Award, which they admit has not been produced before this Court, to the competent Court under Section 64 of the “RFCTLARR Act”.
6. I have heard Sri.T.S.Harikumar -learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Solicitor General of India -Sri.P.Vijayakumar, Sri.Salil Narayan -learned Standing Counsel for NHAI and learned Special Government Pleader -Sri.Hanil Kumar.
7. Sri.Salil Narayan, learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, commenced his submissions in opposition to the afore plea made by Sri.T.S.Harikumar, saying that the petitioners seem to have approached this Court under a wrong impression and on an apocryphal apprehension. He invited my attention to Ext.P4, which is a notice issued to the petitioners under Section 3(E) of the NH Act, to show me that the compensation under the Award had been computed and determined by the CALA only under the provisions of the “RFCTLARR Act”. He submitted that, therefore, the petitioners will have to approach the District Collector under Section 3(G) of the NH Act, if they are dissatisfied and that the said Authority will then consider it wholly guided by the principles under the “RFCTLARR Act”. He argued that this is exactly what has been mandated through Ext.P1 order of the Central Government, which stipulates that the provisions of the “RFCTLARR Act”, relating to determination of compensation, as per the 2nd Schedule thereto, will be applicable to the “NH Act” also. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
8. I find substantial force in the submissions of Sri.Salil Narayan, learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI because, as per Ext.P1, the provisions of the “RFCTLARR Act” have been made applicable to all the Statutes which are covered by Schedule Four therein and the NH Act certainly is one among them. Apodictically therefore, the com
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
