SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
MRS. SREEDEVI – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 27668 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SMT.SNEHA ROSE, SMT.P.S.ARUNA
For the Respondents: SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE, SRI.LEJO JOSEPH GEORGE, SMT.SYLAJA S.L., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Petitioner entitled to full compensation as determined by applicable land acquisition laws.

Headnote:The petitioner, having filed a writ petition concerning her property in Survey No.166/1-2 acquired for National Highway widening, claimed compensation for 0.0184 Hectares instead of 0.01210 Hectares. The court directed the relevant authority to serve the award and facilitate the petitioner's right to seek enhanced compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the National Highways Act, 1956. The court concluded that the award must be served to allow the petitioner to pursue legal remedies.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim for compensation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's observations on case proceedings. (Para 3 , 4)
3. conclusion on serving award. (Para 5)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition, pointing out that a portion of her property in Survey No.166/1- 2 of Thuravoor South Village was acquired for the widening of the National Highway, and though an award at Ext.P3 was passed, the compensation was only granted for an extent of 0.01210 Hectares. According to the petitioner, the actual land acquisition was for 0.0184 Hectares and, therefore, she is entitled for getting compensation for the entire extent of 0.0184 Hectares. She has also pointed out that a request with the afore prayer was also submitted before the Authorities.

2. Heard Smt.Sneha Rose, the learned counsel representing Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader.

3. On 19.04.2024, taking note of the rival submissions as above, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for passing an award and also to pay compensation for the balance portion of land also.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that, on the basis of the interim order passed as above, though amounts have been credited to the bank account of the petitioner, an award has not been issued or served on the petitioner till date.

5. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the award requires to be served on the petitioner, especially when the petitioner has a remedy for seeking enhancement of compensation under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act , 2013, as well as the provisions of the National Highways Act , 1956.

In view of the afore, this writ petition would stand disposed of, recording the submission made by the petitioner that amounts have been credited to her bank account. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to serve the award, as directed in the interim order dated 19.04.2024, so that the petitioner can work out her remedies in accordance with law.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top