JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that his property has been acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and admits that Ext.P5 Final Order/Award, under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act (NH Act), has also been issued.

2. Sri.P.Sathisan – learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that his client has various contentions against the determination of the compensation in Ext.P5 Award by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act (hereinafter referred to as the “NH Act” for short), particularly, that no amounts have been granted for the building, admittedly standing on the acquired land, though the competent officials of the NHAI had, through Ext.P4 Valuation Report, recorded its value as being Rs.7,62,640/-. He thus prayed that CALA be directed to modify Ext.P5 Award, taking into account Ext.P4 Valuation Report, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader –

Smt.Mable C.Kurian, in response, submitted that the petitioner cannot assail Ext.P5 Award before this Court, since he has an alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the “NH Act”. She further contended that since Ext.P5 Award has already been concededly issued by the CALA, he has been rendered functus officio, as per the declarations of law made by this Court in Usman Arif v. The Project Director, NHAI & Others [2022 (1) KLT 35] and that he cannot, therefore, modify the same. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Sri.Mathews K.Philip – learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, submitted that his client has no comment to make as regards the contentions of the petitioner at this stage; but that, as and when he prefers an application under Section 3G(5) of the “NH Act” before the competent Statutory Arbitrator, the official concerned of the NHAI also be directed to be heard.

5. I must say that I find great force in the afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader because the petitioner himself admits that the CALA has already issued the Final Award, namely Ext.P5. Hence, as correctly argued by her, the said Authority is now rendered functus officio and cannot be directed to modify the Award. In fact, Sri.P.Sathisan also agreed to this and pleaded that, if this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs sought for, then his client may be left liberty to invoke his alternative statutory remedy.

Taking note to the afore submissions, I dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

(a) I leave liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate application under Section 3G(5) of the “NH Act” before the statutory Arbitrator – District Collector within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the said Authority will proceed to consider it, after hearing him, as also the official concerned of the NHAI; thus leading to appropriate orders and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible.

(b) I further permit the petitioner to approach this Court for fixing a time frame for the order to be issued by the statutory Arbitrator, if the same is not done within a period of eight months from the date on which the application is preferred in terms of the afore directions.

(c) Needless to say, I permit the petitioner to impel alleged non-grant of the contentions, including that relating to the value of the building; and if it is so done, then the District Collector will specifically advert to Ext.P4 Valuation Report, while the afore ordered exercise is completed.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10598/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.KL08040601798/2021 DATED 05.07.2021.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ORUMANAYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH ATTESTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DATED 17.02.2022.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL PLAN OF THE CONSTR