Seena Emmanuel vs Union Of India

Viju Abraham, J.

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).

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.

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 Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Petitioner relies on the judgment in Lillykutty v. State of Kerala, 2012 KHC 751 and contend that while determining compensation, if the properties of the husband and wife are lying together contiguously and that the husband and wife are enjoying the properties as common holding of the family, it should be included in one and the same category for fixation of compensation. The contention of the petitioner is that the same has not been done in the present case. Petitioner submits that since award has already been passed she may be permitted to raise all these contentions before the Arbitrator and a direction may be issued to the Arbitrator to consider the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding Ext.P4 BVR wherein no category has been provided for properties having National Highway access.

Therefore, it is ordered that if the petitioner approaches the Arbitrator and raise all these contentions including the objection regarding Ext.P4 BVR, the Arbitrator shall make necessary enquiry as to whether the property is having National Highway access and as to whether the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Lillykutty’s case cited supra could be extended to the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon dehors the fact that in Ext.P4 BVR no such category has been provided as property having access to the National Highway.

With the abovesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.