Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 62954
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
MOHAMMED KUNHI HAJI – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/30636/2022
K.SHIBILI NAHA, A.LOWSY, NIVEA K.G
An order of remand that lacks jurisdiction renders subsequent awards issued under it invalid.
Headnote:
Compensation - National Highways Act - Section 3G(5), 3E - The court reviewed the legal provisions regarding land acquisition and the limits of arbitrator's authority in issuing fresh awards, ultimately determining that the order leading to the previous awards was invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners requested the court to direct the 2nd respondent to act on their appeal concerning compensation for land acquisition under the National Highways Act and questioned the validity of an order from a remand to the CALA.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the remand order to the CALA was unsustainable, hence the subsequent awards issued under that order lacked legal validity, requiring re-evaluation.
Issues: Whether the CALA's award following a remand order was valid and if the petitioners were entitled to challenge that award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that an invalid remand order cannot validly influence subsequent administrative actions, necessitating a reevaluation of compensation matters.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the CALA's award, directing reconsideration of the matter.
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
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30496/2022 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 NOTICE DATED 05.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3 E OF THE ACT 48 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ REVISED AWARD ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS LAC. NO. 68/KASARGOD VILLAGE, DATED
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 UNDE
