The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not govern the referral procedure for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956; disputes regarding compensation for such acquisitions must be referred under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. Question raised in the writ petition is ‘Whether the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013( in short Act 30 of 2013) will apply to an acquisition under the National Highways Act 1956 in view of the notification No.S.O. 2368(E) dated 28-8-2015 issued under the provisions of Section 105 of the Act 30 of 2013.

2. Petitioners claim that they are the members of the family of a trustee of Thiruvangat Para Temple, Chelembra Post, Kondotty Taluk, Malappuram District. Certain portions of the property of the Temple was acquired for widening of the National Highway. The land acquired is to an extent of 0.1401 Hectares in Re.Survey No.165/2, Old Survey No.508/6. An amount of Rs.2,04,19,333/- (Rupees Two crore four lakh nineteen thousand three hundred and thirty three only) was determined as a compensation by the District Collector under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The District Collector issued Ext.P5 notice calling for the documents required for ascertaining the right of ownership and possession for awarding the compensation. It appears that the temple is under the custody of the Malabar Devaswom Board, which has appointed the Executive Officer, the 5^th respondent in the original petition, to manage its affairs. Since the members of the trustee family did not appear and establish their rights over the affairs of the Temple, the District Collector proceeded to deposit the amount before the District Court-II, Manjeri. The District Court treated the proceedings as a reference under Section 77(2) of the the Act 30 of 2013, and answered the reference by Ext.P6 order by finding that the claimant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,04,19,333/- (Rupees Two crore four lakh nineteen thousand three hundred and thirty three only). The claimant- Malabhar Devaswom Board was represented by the Executive Officer of the Temple. Surprisingly, the Malabar Devaswom Board did not alert the jurisdictional court that the temple was under the supervision of the Executive Officer and that there were hereditary trustees in respect of the temple. Be that as it may, the resettlement authority, under Ext.P6 order, proceeded to allow the reference in favour of the Malabar Devaswom Board. Subsequently, by Ext.P9 application, the petitioners sought for reopening of the reference since they were not parties to the proceedings. Later, they approached this Court by O.P.(C)No.2742 of 2023, wherein Ext.P10 judgment was rendered directing the jurisdictional court to take up Ext.P9 application and till such time the disbursement was directed to be kept in abeyance. In pursuance of the said directions, the District Court has passed Ext.P11 order declining relief to the petitioners stating that the remedy of the petitioners was to file an appeal against Ext.P6 decree passed in the reference case. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard Sri.Thareeq Anver K., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.R.Ranjanie, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, Sri.P.Venu Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 5^th respondent and Sri.Unni Krishnan S., the learned Government Pleader for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The pointed dispute that requires to be resolved by this Court is as to (i) Whether the petitioners are required to be relegated to the remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P6 order because the reference was treated as one under