Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 42612
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
JOSEPH PATRICK – Appellant
Versus
THE ARBITRATOR AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C)/16797/2020
Sri.George Mecheril, Sri.Bimal K.Nath, Sri.Mathew K.Philip, K.P.Harish, Smt.Elizebath George
Landowners have the right to solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisitions made under the National Highways Act, as declared by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Compensation - Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3J, 23(1A), 23(2), 28 - The court reaffirmed the entitlement to solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act as determined by the Supreme Court, highlighting the unconstitutionality of Section 3J for its discriminatory nature.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the compensation fixed for land acquired for National Highway widening, claiming denial of solatium and interest, referencing Supreme Court judgments declaring entitlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest based on Supreme Court rulings, directing the authorities to consider their representations accordingly.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest under the National Highways Act despite provisions limiting such compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act regarding solatium and interest apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, following the Supreme Court's declaration of unconstitutionality concerning Section 3J.
Final Decision: Writ Petitions are disposed of with directions for consideration of representations on solatium and interest.
JUDGMENT
[WP(C).16797/2020, WP(C).16822/2020, WP(C).16944/2020, WP(C).16954/2020, WP(C).17044/2020, WP(C).17134/2020, WP(C).17291/2020, WP(C).17298/2020, WP(C).17346/2020, WP(C).17404/2020]
The properties owned by the petitioners herein were acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway invoking the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 . Aggrieved by the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners challenged the same before the Arbitrator. Though the amount of compensation was enhanced no sum was granted towards solatium and interest on solatium.
2. The petitioners contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Tarsem Singh and Others [ (2019) 9 SCC 304 ] had declared that Section 3J of the National Highways Act insofar as it deprives the landowner of solatium and interest in Section 23 (1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of the proviso to Section 28 is unconstitutional and that those benevolent provisions would apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act as well.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that since the entitlement of the landowners for solatium and interest having been declared by the Apex Court, the petitioners cannot be denied such benefits. Reliance is also placed on Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur and Another v. Vinodkumar and Another [ 2020 (2) KLT 399 ] to bring home their point that the petitioners are also entitled to the solatium and interest.
4. The petitioners also contend that a person covered by the same notification was granted enhanced solatium and interest as per proceedings dated 22.2.2020 of the Special Deputy Collector in LAC No.781/2009 taking note of the declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. The petitioners in the said circumstances have filed representations before the 2nd respondent as is evident from Exts.P4 and P5 in some of the cases. Though various reliefs are claimed, the prayer advanced by Sri.George Mecheril, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the representation filed by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent be ordered to be considered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court and also the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in LAC No.781/2009.
5. I have heard Sri. George Mecheril, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mathew Philip, the Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the State.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to hold as follows in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh case (Supra);
“We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23 (1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, declared to be unconstitutional".
7. In Special Deputy Collector, Thrissur and Another v.
Vinodkumar and Another [ 2020 (2) KLT 399 ], it was held thus:
7. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which struck down Section 3-J of the Act and the judgment of the Madras High Court, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to the payment of solatium and interest will apply to the acquisitions made under the Act. In so far as the directions in the impugned judgment to make payment of solatium and interest are concerned, we observe that the statutory authorities are bound to compute the compensation in terms of Section 3-G of the Act and grant all benefits provided under the . The benefits shall be given within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
8. In the light of the precedents cited above, I am of the opinion that necessary directions can
