JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6 th day of Apri l , 202 2 .

The petitioners, who claim to be the owners of certain properties acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), concede that Ext.P2 and P2(a) Awards have been issued by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, (‘NH Act’ for short); but alleging that the compensation granted is woefully insufÏcient because the physical nature of the properties has been wrongly construed as a wet land, though it was remaining as a dry land for the last several decades. They thus pray that CALA be directed to modify the Awards assessing the actual nature of the properties, taking note of Exts.P4 and P4(a) entries in the Data Bank, preferred under the mandate of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, also Ext.P5 certificate issued by the competent Agricultural OfÏcer within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. However, in response to the afore request of Sri.P.Sathisan – learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.K.Amminikutty – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the determination of the compensation with respect to the property in question has already been completed by the CALA which is evident from Exts.P2 ad P2(a) Awards; and therefore, that remedy of the petitioners is to approach the competent Statutory Arbitrator, under the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the ‘NH Act’. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

3. Sri.Bidan Chandran – learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, endorsed the afore submissions of Smt.K.Amminikutty; but added that if the petitioners are to approach the competent Arbitrator, then directions may be issued that the ofÏcers concerned of his client be also heard in such process.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is evident that the case of the petitioners is that the value of the properties has been wrongly calculated by the CALA. However, this Court has already declared that once the CALA issues an Award under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act, it is rendered functus ofÏcio, except for the purpose of issuing supplementary Awards (see for support Usman Arif v. Project Director, NHAI (2022 (1) KLT 35).

5. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, since the petitioners seek re-computation of the value of the properties, in effect, what they require is not a supplementary Award, but a modification of the original one itself. I am afraid that this cannot be done and that the petitioners will have to invoke their statutory alternative remedy, assailing the said Awards under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act.

6. Presumably, being aware of the mind of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that his clients will approach the District Collector, who is the Statutory Arbitrator under the provisions of the NH Act; but prayed that said Authority be directed to advert to Aboobacker v. Union of India (2021 (5) KHC 761), which declares the manner in which the value of a property is to be assessed and finalised.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition with the following directions:

(a) The petitioners will be at full liberty to make an application under Section 3G(5) of the ‘NH Act’ before the statutory Arbitrator against Exts.P2 and P2(a) Awards; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, it shall be considered by the said Authority, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, as also to the ofÏcers concerned of the NHAI; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon without any avoidable delay.

(b) I make it clear that all the contentions of the petitioners impelled in this case, including on the touchstone of the judgment of this Court in Aboobakar Vs. National Highway Authority of India , as also on Exts.P4 and P4(a) and Ext.P5, are left open to be pursued by them appropriately before the statuto