Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52640
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
MOHAMMED KUNHI HAJI – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/30496/2022
K.SHIBILI NAHA A.LOWSY NIVEA K.G
The authority of CALA in compensation matters is governed strictly by jurisdictional limits, and any invalid remand undermines the legitimacy of awards issued thereafter.
Headnote:
Highways - National Highways Act - Section 3G(5) - The court ruled on the authority of CALA and the limitations of remand orders by the District Collector, emphasizing the importance of valid jurisdiction in compensation fixation following arbitration procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking orders for reconsideration of compensation claims related to land acquisition, challenging an order that permitted a remand by the District Collector to CALA for fresh awards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the remand order issued by the District Collector was without legal foundation and should not be recognized, thereby requiring CALA to re-evaluate the arbitration petition in accordance with the law.
Issues: Whether the remand order of the District Collector for CALA to issue fresh awards was valid and how it impacted the authority of CALA to fix compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the remand order lacked legal validity and CALA acted outside its jurisdiction under the prevailing legal framework, necessitating a fresh examination of the compensation claims.
Final Decision: Writ petitions allowed; earlier awards set aside, and CALA ordered to reconsider compensation claims.
JUDGMENT
Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 and
3. Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent.
These writ petitions have been filed praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 appeal preferred by the petitioners in terms of Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 adverting to Ext.P6 judgment and for a direction to the 2nd respondent to enhance the compensation as is done in similar cases. There is also a prayer that the 3rd respondent CALA becomes 'functus officio' going by the dictum laid downUsman Arif and Another v. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India [2022 (1) KLT 32]. Reliance is placed on Ext.P6 judgment in W.P(C).No.19401 of 2021 relating to acquisition of lands in the same area. This Court considered the question whether the Arbitrator could remand a case to the CALA to issue a fresh award. This Court specifically found that the District Collector did not have the power to issue such an order and set aside the order remanding the matter to the CALA and directed the Arbitrator to pass fresh orders. It is also observed that, if as a consequence of remand order CALA has passed an Award, the same shall be treated as being without jurisdiction. In the case on hand, the Government Pleader points out that unlike a case of open remand, this is a case where the Arbitrator even stated that after remand the CALA should pass a fresh award without exceeding a particular amount. He hence submitted that if the petitioners have a grievance regarding the said order they have to challenge the order of the Arbitrator rather than challenging the subsequent order which has been issued by the CALA. Even though the argument appears good at the first blush, I do no think that this Court can ignore the fact that the very order whereby the CALA was directed to pass fresh awards cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As such, there is no necessity to relegate the petitioner to challenge the initial order of the Arbitrator in other proceedings. In view of the dictum laid down in Ext.P6 judgment and inUsman Arif (Supra), this Court cannot accept the contention that the order of District Collector remanding the matter, should be treated as valid for the limited extent of the fixation of compensation to be awarded by CALA, since the order of remand itself cannot be sustained.
As a result, these writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P4 Award which has been issued pursuant to the order dated 17.02.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent is declared to be an order without any force of law. The 2nd respondent shall reconsider the arbitration petition filed by the 1st respondent in accordance with law and dispose of the same. The order dated 17.02.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside to facilitate the 2nd respondent to reconsider the issue. Fresh orders shall be passed after notice to the petitioners and the 1st respondent at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE
27.04.2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 17.01.2022 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.
19401/2021 DATED 05.01.2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30636/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 NOTARIZED COPY OF THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED ON 31.03.2021 IN FAVOUR OF THE 9TH PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN LAC 64/
KASARGOD VILLAGE Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
20.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT U
