The District Collector exceeded jurisdiction by directing redetermination of compensation under the National Highways Act, as awards were already made prior to the 2013 Act's applicability.

ORDER :

The Deputy General Manager (T) cum Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, PIU – Nagercoil is the writ petitioner in all these writ petitions. In WP(MD)Nos.24617, 24618, 24619, 24620, 24621, 24622, 24623, 24624, 27531, 27532 of 2022, the direction issued by the District Collector, Kanyakumari and the consequential redetermination awards passed by the Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Tirunelveli @ Nagercoil are under challenge. In the remaining two writ petitions, the consequential redetermination awards passed by the authority alone have been questioned.

2.The basic facts are not in dispute. The second respondent herein was appointed as Competent Authority for the project vide Notification No.1197 and S.O. No. 2078(E) dated 20.08.2008 in exercise of the powers conferred to the Central Government under Section 3(a) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Lands were acquired under the provisions of the for the widening of NH-47B (Nagercoil to Kavalkinaru Section). Notifications issued under Section 3-A(1) and Section 3-D(1) of the were published in 2010-2011. The notifications included 22 villages in Kanyakumari District and one village in Tirunelveli District. The competent authority passed awards determining the compensation for the following villages on the dates correspondingly mentioned in the following table :

Though the notification was in respect of 23 villages, compensation in respect of 15 villages were determined under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and compensation in respect of the remaining 8 villages was determined as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This disparity in grant of compensation gave rise to considerable heart burn and led to widespread agitation and protests. The aggrieved land owners wanted redetermination of their compensation in terms of the 2013 Act. This issue was taken up by the District Collector, Kanyakumari District who vide proceedings dated 04.05.2022 accorded his concurrence for passing revised award under the new Act in respect of the aforementioned villages (10) except Kalkulam and Eraviputhoor. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the competent authority passed the impugned redetermination awards enhancing the compensation payable to the persons whose lands were acquired. The stand of the writ petitioner/NHAI is that even though the proceedings of the District Collector, Nagercoil dated 04.05.2022 pertained only to ten villages, the competent authority passed redetermination awards in respect of two more villages. Challenging the redetermination, these writ petitions have been filed.

3.The learned standing counsel for NHAI reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. His primary contention is that the impugned proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. He pointed out that all the awards in the instant cases were passed prior to 01.01.2015. Relying on the decisions reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 77 ( Gopa Ram vs Union of India ) and 2021 SCC OnLine AP 3194 ( Lanka Prabhakar v Union of India ), he contended that S