CLARET NIVAS Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property owned by the petitioner herein was acquired for the development of National Highway invoking the provisions of the National Highways Act , 1956. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner challenged the same before the Arbitrator. Though the amount of compensation was modified, no sum was granted towards additional compensation under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated that due to certain omissions in assessing the compensation for the demolition of boundary wall, a fresh valuation report was prepared and some additional amounts were found due to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner 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 petitioner that since the entitlement of the landowners for solatium and interest having been declared by the Apex Court, the petitioner 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 his point that the petitioner is also entitled to solatium and interest. Raising all these contentions, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the respondents. It is in the afore circumstances, this writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: