The Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 has the jurisdiction to consider the issue of deduction of salvage value, even after the competent authority has passed an order deducting the same.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 - SECTION 3G - DEDUCTION OF SALVAGE VALUE - ARBITRATOR'S JURISDICTION - WRIT COURT'S DIRECTION TO CALA TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE - INTERFERENCE - HELD, the direction issued by the writ court, in the impugned judgment, to CALA, to consider the issue with respect to deduction made against the salvage value, after passage of the order, has to be interfered with.
Fact of the Case:

Writ appeal filed by respondents 4, 7 and 8 in W.P.(C) No.23142 of 2021, challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2021, by which, writ court directed the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), to consider the case of the writ petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 herein, that they do not intend to appropriate the salvage from the acquired property and, therefore, are entitled to full compensation determined under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956.
Finding of the Court:

The direction issued by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment, to the competent authority, to consider the issue as regards deduction made against the salvage from the acquired property, requires interference. Accordingly, the direction so issued is vacated and the Arbitrator is left with the liberty to consider the issue with respect to deduction of Salvage, in the proceedings pending before it, taking into account the provisions of Act, 1956.
Issues: Whether the direction issued by the writ court, in the impugned judgment, to CALA, to consider the issue with respect to deduction made against the salvage value, after passage of the order, has to be interfered with or not.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 is a self contained Code, by which, modalities are prescribed, in order to deal with acquisition of land, fixation of compensation, passage of order, etc.2. Once the competent authority takes a decision, with respect to the compensation to be paid, the competent authority becomes a functus officio and, thereafter, the authority is not vested with any powers to re-open the proceedings.3. Any person who is aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority, is vested with a right to approach the Arbitrator.4. The Arbitrator is an independent authority to take a decision with respect to the proceedings initiated before it.5. The letters/guidelines issued by the authorities for fixing the compensation in a particular manner de hors the provisions contained under the National Highways Act, 1956, will not detain the Arbitrator under the Act, 1956, to arrive at a just and independent decision and pass an award accordingly.
Final Decision: Writ appeal is allowed in part.

JUDGMENT

S. MANIKUMAR, CJ

Instant writ appeal is filed by respondents 4, 7 and 8 in W.P.(C) No.23142 of 2021, viz., Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Thiruvananthapuram; Project Director, NHAI (Head Office), New Delhi, and its Chairman, challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2021, by which, writ court directed the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), to consider the case of the writ petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 herein, that they do not intend to appropriate the salvage from the acquired property and, therefore, are entitled to full compensation determined under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956.

2. Writ court further ordered in the impugned judgment that the direction, of course, will apply only in the event of the awards in favour of the petitioners have not been issued until today and not otherwise; and if, on the contrary, such awards have already been passed, the writ petitioners will certainly have to challenge the same, in terms of Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, with the afore directions ceasing to have any effect thereupon.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition by respondents 1 and 2 herein are that; writ petitioners are the residents of Kollam and Alappuzha districts. They are having properties abutting National Highway- 66. For the purpose of widening National Highway-66, their properties situated on the side of National Highway, were acquired by the respondents therein, for which, Sections 3A and 3D notifications were issued, as evident from Exhibits-P1, P1(a) and P2.

4. Petitioners have further stated that their properties comprised of civil constructions and buildings. Section 3G Award under National Highways Act, 1956 had been settled, wherein, apart from the purported deduction of salvage value of the civil construction in the property, subjected to acquisition, a deduction of 6% of the compensation, with respect to the structure, had been effected.

5. Petitioners have also stated that salvage value could be deducted only if the landowner takes the remnants, after demolition of the civil construction/structure and not otherwise, when the remnants were taken away by the acquisitioning authority. In the case on hand, writ petitioners are not seeking to take away the remnants of demolished structure, rather, they have specifically intimated the concerned that they do not require any of the demolished structure/remnants of civil constructions.

6. Being aggrieved by the discrimination shown by the respondents therein that, in spite of taking away the remnants of structure after demolition in the acquired land by the acquisitioning authority, the deduction of 6% towards salvage value is effected against the compensation fixed for the structure in the acquired lands, and hence, the writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners the amount deducted as salvage at 6% of the compensation amount in Section 3G awards, within a time frame fixed by this Court, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of deduction till payment.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus of such other writ or direction or order, declaring that the deduction of salvage amount at 6% from compensation entitled and awarded to the landowners when the structural remnants are not taken over by the landowners as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.

(iii) Pass such other orders or directions which this Court may find deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and,

(iv) Award costs of the proceedings to the petitioners.

7. After considering the rival submissions, vide judgment dated 30.11.2021 in W.P(C). No.23142 of 2021, writ court ordered as under:

“6. When I consider the afore submissions, prima facie it appears that the instructions of the MoRTH, with respect to the salvage, is only in the case where the owner of the property and the building takes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document