K.V.GEORGE Vs. ARBITRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 the judgment of this Court in 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. Raising all these contentions, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent. Though various other reliefs are sought for in this writ petition, when the matter came up for admission, the limited prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation filed by them within a time frame.