VISHANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exts.P6(a), P6(b) orders and Ext.P7 award passed by the 3rd respondent are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners are siblings. Their properties were acquired for widening the national highway. The 3rd respondent passed Ext.P5 award in favour of the petitioners under Sec. 3G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and awarded compensation. Subsequent to the passing of Ext.P5 award, the 3rd respondent initiated enquiry as to the nature of the pathway of the properties of the petitioners. After such an enquiry, which was conducted without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the nature of the pathway was determined to be 'thodu puramboke'. Consequently, the 3rd respondent issued Exts.P6(a) and P6(b) orders reducing the compensation already awarded as per Ext.P5. Consequent to Ext. P6(b), a revised award as Ext.P7 was issued by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd petitioner. It is challenging Exts.P6(a), P6(b) and P7, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Thareeq Anver K, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader and Sri. B.G. Bidan Chandran, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.