The acquisition of property must adhere to statutory provisions ensuring fair compensation, and remedies are available through designated authorities post-award.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that his property and the building standing thereon have been acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) in flagrant violation of Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act , 2013 ('Fair Compensation Act', for short), because the competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act , 1956 ('NH Act', for short), has now issued Ext.P5 Award only granting compensation for the portion of the building in question and that too, without ascertaining the value of its improvements and structure.

2. The petitioner further says that only 3.5 cents of his property has now been acquired and that the balance has been rendered value less and thus that CALA is obligated to issue a supplementary Award with respect to the same.

3. Smt.Irine Mathew – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained her client's case saying that, on account of the acquisition now initiated by the competent Authority, the building and remaining portion of the property of her client has been left without any further value. She thus argued that this is a fit case where the provisions of Section 94 of the 'Fair Compensation Act' ought to have been adverted to by the CALA, particularly because her client had informed the said Authority of his intention that the entire building be acquired.

4. As regards the balance land is concerned, Smt.Irine Mathew further argued that the CALA ought to have also considered the same and since Ext.P5 Award does not take such aspect at all, said Authority be directed to issue a supplementary Award. She thus prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

5. In response, Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader, submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable, because the CALA has been rendered functus officio consequent to the issuance of Ext.P5 Award, as has been declared by this Court in Usman Arif v. the Project Director [ 2022 (1) KLT 35 ]. She submitted that, therefore, the proper remedy of the petitioner is to approach the statutory Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the 'NH Act' and thus pleaded that this writ petition be dismissed.

6. Sri.B.G.Bidan Chandran – learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, adopted most of the afore submissions of Smt.Resmi Thomas, but added that if and when the petitioner approaches the statutory Arbitrator with an application under Section 3G (5)

of the 'NH Act', the Official concerned of the NHAI may also be directed to be heard.

7. When I consider the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that the specific submission of Smt.Irine Mathew is that acquisition of her client's property flagrantly violates Section 94 of the 'Fair Compensation Act'. Her additional argument regarding the balance extent of land - left after acquisition, is to the effect that CALA must be directed to issue a supplementary Award with respect to it. 8. Before I go forward, I must certainly record that, as rightly stated by the learned Government Pleader – Smt.Resmi Thomas, once Ext.P5 Award has been issued, the CALA has been rendered functus officio on account of the declarations of this Court in Usman Arif (supra). Of course, the further plea of Smt.Irine Mathew that balance land will have to be acquired is not something that the CALA can consider, because admittedly, it was not part of the final Section 3D notification issued under the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

9. In the afore circumstances, I am certainly of the view that petitioner mu