A tenant must assert interest in land acquisition proceedings to qualify for compensation; failure to respond to statutory notices negates the claim.

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

As both these appeals impugn a common judgment dated 26.06.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22724 of 2019, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of these writ appeals are as follows:

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22724 of 2019 claims to have been a tenant in premises belonging to the appellant in W.A. No.485 of 2021. He was apparently a trader doing business in shop rooms in the building owned by the appellant in W.A. No.485 of 2021. The shop rooms were acquired for development of NH-17 pursuant to a Section 3A notification issued in terms of the National Highways Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), 1956. It is not a dispute that in response to the proposed acquisition, the writ petitioner did not prefer any objections. Thereafter, when the proceedings for acquisition reached the stage of determination of amount payable as compensation under Section 3G of the Act, the writ petitioner did not respond to the public notice issued in terms of Section 3G (3) of the Act, which enabled all persons interested in the land to be acquired to prefer claims in respect of the compensation granted for the acquisition of the lands. The writ petitioner, therefore, cannot be seen as an 'interested person' for the purposes of the Act, and for the receipt of compensation under the Act.

3. It would appear that, much after the publication of the award in favor of the owner of the land (the appellant in W.A. No.482 of 2021), the writ petitioner preferred a representation addressed to the owner of the land as also to the Land Acquisition Officer seeking an enhancement of the compensation and a direction to pay a portion of the compensation to him towards improvements that he had allegedly made in the property while occupying the same as a tenant. On the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting the said representation, he approached this Court through the writ petition aforementioned.

4. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found, on an interpretation of Section 3G (2), that the writ petitioner was an interested person for the purposes of the Act and therefore, he had a right in the compensation granted in respect of the land that was acquired. The writ petition was therefore allowed to the extent of permitting the writ petitioner to claim compensation from the authorities under the Act within a period of two months, after valuing the improvements alleged to have been made by him. The learned Single Judge effectively directed a re- determination of the compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, without formally setting aside the award that had already been passed in the matter.

5. In the appeals before us, preferred both by the landlord as also by the State, the contention urged is essentially that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed a consideration of the claim for compensation made by the writ petitioner/tenant under circumstances where he had not taken any steps under the Act to establish his status as an interested person in the acquisition proceedings. It is pointed out that while he had not responded by way of objection to the notice issued under Section 3A , as required in terms of Section 3C of the Act, he had also not responded to the public notice issued in terms of Section 3G (3) of the Act. It was under those circumstances that the authorities under the Act proceeded to determine, and award compensation, only to the owner of the land who was before the authorities concerned.

6. We have heard Sri.T.Madhu, the learned counsel for the appell