SEENA EMMANUEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 BVR and for a direction to the respondents to include an additional category of property with National Highway access in the Basis Valuation Report of Karimba-1 Village, Mannarkkad Taluk for the purpose of acquisition in respect of National Highway 966 (Greenfield).

(2.) It is averred that the petitioner is the absolute owner of 5.68 acres of land comprised in survey nos.173, 170/1A 1, 170/1A2, 176/2A and 176/2B of Karimba-I Village in Mannarkkad Taluk of Palakkad District, which is obtained as per Ext.P1 settlement deed. The property situated on the western side of the petitioner's property is owned by her husband, which was obtained as per Ext.P2 sale deed. The contention of the petitioner is that both the properties are lying contiguously as a compact plot and in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and her husband. Ext.P4 BVR was prepared in respect of Karimba-1 Village wherein only four categories of properties were shown. The specific contention of the petitioner is that in Ext.P4 BVR there is no category prescribed as property which has got access to the National Highway, whereas in respect of other Villages, as evident from Ext.P5, an additional category has been prescribed as 'Category E Wetland-Nilam with NH road access'. The contention of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner is also having National Highway access and since such a category has not been provided in Ext.P4 BVR, petitioner is put to serious prejudice. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that since the award has already been passed, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Arbitrator under Sec. 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956.