Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
VIJAYAKUMAR B – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) 32540/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SMT.SNEHA ROSE, SMT.P.S.ARUNA
For the Respondents: SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN, SC – B.G. BIDAN CHANDRAN, ADV. NIMA JACOB
The entitlement for compensation under land acquisition law must be adjudicated by the designated Arbitrator.
Headnote:The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for compensation related to land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, claiming an undisbursed amount and rehabilitation package eligibility. The Court found the matter should be resolved by the Arbitrator. The primary issues included entitlement to compensation and adherence to past judgments. The Court reinforced that all claims should be presented to the Arbitrator, resulting in the disposal of the writ petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for compensation under land acquisition law. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. valuation discrepancies and claims argued by the parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court directs arbitration for claim resolution. (Para 6) |
| 4. final decision to dispose of the writ petition. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2025 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to disburse the balance amount of Rs.28,12,594/- along with solatium and interest, by passing an award, in respect to the structural value of the residential building No.7/653 of Pattanakkad Grama Panchayat in Sy.No.44/3-4-1 of Pattanakkad Village, without any delay.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to disburse the value determined and informed in Ext.P8 to the petitioner with immediate effect.
iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is eligible for the rehabilitation package, introduced under the 2nd schedule of the Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to award compensation of Rs.2,86,000/- for the loss of his residential building No.7/653 of Pattanakkad Grama Panchayat in Sy.No.44/3-4-1 of Pattanakkad Village, under the 2nd schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .
v) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to conduct inspection and assess/determine the value of the residential building No.7/653 of Pattanakkad Grama Panchayat in Sy.No.44/3-4-1 of Pattanakkad Village, in accordance with the valuation made in Ext.P8.
vi) It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document.
and vii) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. An extent of 0.0229 hectares of land (5.65 cents) in Sy.No.44/3-4-1 of Pattanakkad Village was acquired for the widening of NH 66. It is contended that by the said acquisition 90% of the petitioner’s residential building i.e. 119.27 sq.mtr out of the total extent of 211.40 sq.mtr is also covered under the acquisition. Ext.P4 award was passed whereby only an amount of Rs.36,87,055/- was awarded for the residential building and the amount fixed in the initial valuation, i.e Rs.64,99,649/- was not paid to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court earlier filing WP(C) No.22447/2022 which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment, wherein the petitioner was directed to prefer an appropriate application before the Arbitrator under 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, and also permitting the petitioner to file an interlocutory application before the Arbitrator under Section 17 seeking for valuation of the building, and till a decision is taken the demolition of the building/structure was kept in abeyance. ‘
3. The specific case of the petitioner is that inspite of specific direction in Ext.P5 the valuation has not been done nor the amount as per the initial valuation of PWD authorities was disbursed to the petitioner. Thereupon petitioner made an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 and was informed as per Ext.P7 letter that the valuation of the building is only Rs.36,87,055/-. Petitioner has also a contention that he is entitled for the benefit of R & R package included under 2nd schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 from the respondents for those who have lost residence by virtue of acquisition, and the same has als
