Radha vs Project Director

RADHA vs Project Director

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 05, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1439923

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1439923
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Decided On: Jan 05, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/131/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

RADHA

Respondent

Project Director

Excerpt

.....leaving full liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent arbitrator against ext.p1 award, seeking enhancement of the compensation determined in their favour, under the provisions of section 3g(5) read with section 3g(7) of the ‘nh act’; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall beconsidered by the said authority, after affording them an opportunity of being heard, thus culminating in an appropriate order/necessary action thereon within a period of four months thereafter. needless to say, if the buildings in question have not been yet demolished, action for the same shall be deferred until such time as the competent arbitrator takes a decision as to whether an inspection of the same is required for the purpose of deciding the arbitration request to be made by the petitioners. at this time, sri.u.k.devidas submitted that his clients havealso a case regarding deduction of 6% salvage with respect to the remnants of the buildings, since they have not taken the same from the property. this issue can certainly be impelled by the petitioners before the competent arbitrator, since the law is settled that the said authority is enjoined to consider every aspect, while the arbitration proceedings are completed.sd/- rr devan ramachandran judge appendix of wp(c) 131/2022 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 true copy of award dated 30/07/2021 issued by the third respondent. exhibit p2 true copy of the complaint dated exhibit p3 true copy of letter dated 20/12/2020 before the first respondent. exhibit p4 true copy of the plan of the house in acquired property. exhibit p5 true copy of certificate dated panchayath. exhibit p6 true copy of the letter dated

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 131 OF 2022 PETITIONERS: 1 RADHA, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.MATHU, VALLUPARAMBU, RAYARANGOTH, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 102. 2 SOBHA, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.MATHU, KELOTH HOUSE, PINARAYI P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 741. BY ADVS. U.K.DEVIDAS K.K.ANILRAJ RESPONDENTS:
1 PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, TC 36/414(5), KAYIKKAL VEEDU, KAVU LANE, PALKULANGARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 020. 3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (N.H.), VATAKARA TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 101. 4 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) NATIONAL HIGHWAY, CIVIL STATION, JUMA MASJID, SH 29, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 020. 5 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN - 695 001. 6 UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G-5 & 6, SECTOR-10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110 075.
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY .SR.G.P. SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent - Special Tahsildar, who is the

Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA for short) appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NH Act’ for short), to take up Exts.P2 and P3 representations and revise Ext.P1 Award, taking note of their submissions with respect to the value of the building and structures standing on the property acquired from them.

2. Even when I hear Sri.U.K.Devidas - learned counsel for

the petitioners, on the afore lines, it has been well settled, through various judgments of this Court including in Usman Arif v. The Project Director [2022(1) KLT 35] that once an Award is issued by the CALA, the said Authority becomes functus officio except for the purpose of issuing additional or supplementary Awards, as are permitted under the ‘NH Act’.

3. In this case, the petitioners concede that an Award has

already been issued, but assert that Exts.P2 and P3 representations were made prior to the same. However, since the Award has now been settled, the proper remedy for the petitioners will be to approach the competent Arbitrator under the provisions of Sections 3G(5) and 3G(7) of the ‘NH Act’, with respect to the compensation eligible to them for the building and other structures standing on the property.

In the afore circumstances, I close this Writ Petition,

however, leaving full liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Arbitrator against Ext.P1 Award, seeking enhancement of the compensation determined in their favour, under the provisions of Section 3G(5) read with Section 3G(7) of the ‘NH Act’; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be

considered by the said Authority, after affording them an opportunity of being heard, thus culminating in an appropriate order/necessary action thereon within a period of four months thereafter. Needless to say, if the buildings in question have not been yet demolished, action for the same shall be deferred until such time as the competent Arbitrator takes a decision as to whether an inspection of the same is required for the purpose of deciding the Arbitration Request to be made by the petitioners. At this time, Sri.U.K.Devidas submitted that his clients have

also a case regarding deduction of 6% salvage with respect to the remnants of the buildings, since they have not taken the same from the property. This issue can certainly be impelled by the petitioners before the competent Arbitrator, since the law is settled that the said Authority is enjoined to consider every aspect, while the Arbitration proceedings are completed.

Sd/- RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 131/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 30/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/12/2020 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE HOUSE IN ACQUIRED PROPERTY. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED PANCHAYATH. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties RADHA vs Project Director Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran