Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
LAKSHMIKUTY AMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C)/9241/2020
Compensation - Land Acquisition - National Highway Act Sections - The court ruled that petitioners were to be considered for solatium and interest in land acquisition cases, emphasizing the relevance of recent jurisprudence in determining their entitlements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition claiming that their land was acquired for National Highway widening without awarding solatium and interest, citing a recent Supreme Court judgment as the basis for their claim.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest based on the Supreme Court's ruling, and if their representations have been adequately addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The law recognizing entitlements to solatium and interest was only stipulated recently, hence the competent authority is to reassess the claims following this legal clarification.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing review of the claim for solatium and interest.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of March 2020 This writ petition is filed by the persons who claim that the land belonged to them was acquired for the purpose of widening of the National Highway. The petitioners filed this writ petition since they were not awarded solatium and interest. Their clam is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [2020
2 SCC 569].
2. The petitioners approached the competent authority as well as the District Collector by way of Exts.P3 and P4 representations.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent-
Project Director, National Highway would submits that the petitioners were awarded compensation a decade ago and their remedy is to challenge the compensation amount awarded in accordance with the provisions of National Highway Act if they were not granted solatium and interest.
4. As seen from the documents produced before this Court, the compensation amount was originally determined by the competent authority and thereafter, inadequacy of the compensation was considered in arbitration request by the District Collector. It is to be noted that the petitioners could not claim for solatium and interest at that time as there was no law which recognized such right for claiming interest and solatium. The Apex Court declared the law only in the year 2020. The question that would arise whether the petitioners are entitled for solatium and interest. In view of the fact that the representations are pending before the competent authority, it is for the competent authority to take a decision in the matter after hearing the petitioners as well as the National Highway.
5. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioners for solatium and interest after adverting to the judgment of the Apex Court in Vidya Devi's Case (Supra) within a period of three months.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9241/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN L.A.C. NO. 769/09 DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF AWARD NO. 308/2013 BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.04.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
07.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
13.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
