Point of Law: Petitioner having received the compensation is not entitled to turn around and contend that the petitioner is entitled to repossess the portion of the building which was not sought to be acquired as per the notification issued by the National Highways Authority.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. (C) No. 22852 of 2021 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 03.11.2021. The subject issue relates to the acquisition of a property belonging to the first respondent/writ petitioner and a building situated in the said property. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition were, that Exhibit P4 order passed by the National Highways Authority dated 26.07.2021 notifying that if any house/structure is acquired after paying the full compensation the entire building should be demolished; to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 i.e. the Deputy General Manager (T) and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Kozhikode; the District Collector, Kannur and the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Kannur, to limit the acquisition, destruction etc. only to those portion of the property covered under the notification and to those property for which award has been passed as per Exhibit P1 award notice dated 01.03.2021 bearing No. A1-7/2012(10) (LAC No. 5050) passed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, LA (NH) Unit-II, Collectorate, Kannur; to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to stay away from the remaining portion of the property and the building comprised in Re Sy. No. 27/8 of Muzhappilangad village, Kannur District and to declare that the respondents are not authorized to take over or destruct the portion of the residential house situated in the property, which was not the subject matter of the acquisition as per Exhibit P1 award.

2. The learned single Judge, after taking into account the submissions made by the writ petitioner and hearing the standing counsel for the National Highways Authority of India and assimilating the fact situations, held as follows:

“5. The disputation afore is certainly in the realm of facts, which this Court cannot adjudicate or evaluate, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. That apart, if there is no statutory or regulatory restrictions in maintaining the remaining portion of the building in the area in question, I fail to understand why the respondents should insist on the same be demolished; but, of course, if there are any such restrictions, then certainly they will be entitled to remove it for the benefit of the public at large and for the safety of the users of the Highway.

7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that this issue must be considered by the jurisdictional Project Officer of the NHAI, after hearing the petitioner, so that if there are no regulatory or safety requirements for demolishing the building, it can be allowed to stand; but if, on the other hand, it is found to be contrary to it, then certainly steps for demolition of the same must be taken forward.

8. For the afore purpose, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the Project Officer, Calicut of the first respondent-NHAI, at 11 a.m. on 15.11.2021; on which day, the said Authority will either hear him or fix another date for hearing and then decide whether there are any statutory or safety or regulatory restrictions in maintaining the building in question, leading to the issue of an appropriate order and to communicate the same to the petitioner. If the Project Officer is to find that the building can be allowed to continue, then steps for demolition shall be deferred; but if, on the contrary, it is found that the building cannot be allowed to stand for the afore reasons, then steps be taken for demolition of the same, after following due procedure.

9. At this time, Smt. Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader, intervened to say that if the Project Officer is to find that the remaining portion of the building can be allowed to continue, then the petitioner must be directed to refund the value of the entire building as made in Ext.P1 Award. Though I do not propose to speak on this affirmatively-it being no