The competent authority must determine compensation entitlement based on ownership evidence without referring to civil court when no rival claims exist.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2024 A. J. Desai, C. J. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the original petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 06.06.2023 in W. P. (C) No. 32477 of 2022 by which the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition seeking to disburse an amount of Rs. 12,16,769/-, the payment of which was deferred by the respondent National Highways Authority on the ground that the appellants could produce documents to prove their ownership of only 620 sq.m. of land out of 690 sq.m. acquired for widening of National Highway No. 544, directed the competent authority to take steps to refer the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation in respect of the 70 sq.m. of land for adjudication by the competent civil court, in accordance with law.

2. The short facts that arise from the record are as under:-

After due process, the Central Government published declaration under Section 3D (1) of the National Highways Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), regarding vesting of appellant's land admeasuring 0.0690 hectares (690 sq.m.), comprised in Sy. No. 263/2(263/2) in Panancheri village. Thereafter, competent authority under the National Highways issued Ext. P6 notice under Section 3E(1) of the Act asking the appellants to surrender 690 sq.m.of land in their possession. The authority had, after taking into consideration relevant facts, decided the value of the land at Rs. 6674.85/- per sq.m. and the total amount as Rs. 1,19,93,860.58/-, rounded off to 1,19,93,861/-. However, the appellants were paid only Rs. 1,07,77,092/-, on the premise that they could produce title documents with regard to 620 sq.m. only. Payment of Rs. 12,16,769/- for the remaining land admeasuring 70 sq.m. was hence deferred. The said decision came to be challenged by the present appellants by way of the captioned writ petition.

3. The National Highways Authority as well as the State filed their counter affidavit / statement before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgment, the writ petition came to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

4. By taking us through Ext. P11 Basic Tax Register, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that measurement of 690 sq.m.of land in Sy. No. 263/2 is entered to in the Basic Tax Register, which suggests that the appellants are the owners and occupiers of the land. This entry was made after the resurvey conducted by the State Government way back in the year 1992 and has never been disputed either by the State authority or any individual. He would submit that Ext. P12 Form No. 93 prescribed under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, would show that the balance land in the possession of the appellants, after an earlier acquisition, is 690 sq.m. By taking us through Ext. P16 mahazar prepared by the Special Revenue Inspector while taking possession of the appellant’s land for widening of NH 47 and counter signed by the Special Tahsildar as well as the Project Director, NHAI also reveal that the area under acquisition in Sy.

No. 263/3 is 690 sq.m. By taking us through Ext. P3 possession and non-attachment certificate issued by the Government of Kerala in Form 14C of the Village Manual, he would submit that the appellants are the owners and occupiers of the land and that there is no attachment on the property admeasuring 690 sq.m. 5. He would further submit that, when suo motu proceedings were undertaken by the concerned Tribunal way back in the year 1971, the appellants' predecessor had deposed that he is in possession of 620 sq.ms.. When resurvey was conducted in the year 1992, the land in the appellants' possession was found to be 690 sq.ms. He therefore would submit that sufficient documents we