Point of Law – NHAI, or the other competent Authority, is at liberty to act as per Section 3E of the "NH Act" while taking possession of the acquired properties, notwithstanding the pendancy of the afore ordered exercise.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners claim benefits under Schedules 2 and 3 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as to the “Fair Compensation Act” for short); and seek that the 5th respondent – who is the competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act (“NH Act” for short) – be directed to issue additional Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards to them, in supplementation to the earlier Awards issued with respect to their properties acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI).

2. When this matter was called today, Shri.P.A.Mohammed Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that a counter affidavit has filed by the CALA, producing therewith Ext.R5(a), which is an order of the Government of Kerala providing a 'Compensation Package'; and showed me that, as per the averments in the said affidavit, his clients have been included in the list of beneficiaries prepared in terms of the said order. He, therefore, prayed that the CALA be directed to complete proceedings for issuance of supplementary Awards or additional Awards, as the case may be, under the mandate of R5(a) order, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; and further that an interdiction be ordered against his clients being dispossessed from the properties until such time.

3. The afore submissions of Shri.P.A.Mohammed Shah were vehemently opposed by Shri.Bidan Chandran, learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), saying that, as per the Scheme of the “NH Act” and the 'Fair Compensation

Act', the CALA will have to make an adjudication and evaluation as to the entitlement of the persons who are to be offered the benefits under Schedules 2 and 3 of the latter Act. He argued that, however, what has been now done, appears to be that the CALA has merely followed the dictates of the Government as made through Ext.R5(a) and to automatically –and without assessment or evaluation -include persons in the list of beneficiaries prepared under it. He thus argued that the entire process adopted by the CALA is vitiated and contrary to the provisions of law; and prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. After predicating as afore, Shri.Bidan Chandran then submitted that, even if this Court is inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners, then it may only be to the extent that the CALA be directed to evaluate their contentions, after hearing the NHAI also, and to then decide whether they should be given any benefit, under either Schedule 2 or 3, of the “Fair Compensation Act”.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Surya Binoy, submitted that Ext.R5(a) 'Resettlement Package' has been suggested by the Government because the acquisition of the lands, including that of the petitioners, were effected for a public purpose; and that they, therefore, thought it equitable and requisite to grant necessary compensation and reparatory measures to the persons effected. She added that Ext.R5(a) order does not traverse beyond the provisions of the “Fair Compensation Act” and that the stipulations contained therein are within the parameters of the applicable statutory scheme; thus praying that the action now continued by the CALA be allowed to be completed without any interdiction.

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, there can be little doubt that the CALA is expected to act strictly as per the mandate of the “NH Act” and the “Fair Compensation Act”. The question whether Ext.R5(a) order must be construed to be a “dictation” by the Government to the CALA is not one which is relevant in this case because the said Authority now says that the petitioners have already been included in the list of beneficiaries prepared thereunder, after being found eligible for such.

7. Therefore, the argument of Shri.Bidan Chandran, that the inclusion of the petitioners