WP(C)/34591/2018 of T.V.NARAYANAN Vs STATE OF KERALA on 11 June 2025

J U D G M E N T

The main prayers in the Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioners in tune with Ext.P2 order within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court; ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled for compensation before the National Highway Authority takes the physical possession of the property.”

2. Heard Sri.Lindons C.Davis, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri.Thomas Antony, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-NHAI.

3. The petitioners would state that they are commercial tenants conducting various shops in the shop rooms rented from their building owner/land owner situated in the adjacent area of

National Highway from Dharmasala to Bakkaolam, Kasaragod District. The said part of National Highway is sought to be acquired for widening as four line highway. For that purpose, the Central Government had decided to acquire land as per the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 for widening/four lining, etc. The petitioners' shops, which are on the sides of the said road are going to be acquired for the said purpose. The Central Government had already issued a notification in that regard on 17.12.2013. It is further further pointed that the 1st respondent- State Government has formulated Ext.P-2 policy guidelines by way of one time assistance of Rs.2 lakhs to meet all shifting charges and social costs of commercial tenants like the petitioners, it is averred. The 3rd respondent had listed the petitioners for compensation as per Ext.P-3. That thereafter, the petitioners have approached the respondents for compensation for several times and no effective action is forthcoming. It is in the light of these factual averments, the instant Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed seeking the aforementioned prayers.

4. Having heard both sides, this Court is of the view that it is for the petitioners to file appropriate claim petitions seeking the benefits of Ext.P-2 guidelines before the 5th respondent, who is the competent authority notified for the abovesaid acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956. Such claim petitions should be filed without much delay, preferably within a period of one month from the date notified for receiving a certified copy of this judgment. If such claim petitions are so properly filed, then the 5th respondent-competent authority will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and will render a considered decision thereon in the light of the guidelines thereon. The 5th respondent will be at liberty to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the entitlement of the petitioners for such benefits. Copy of such enquiry report should also be furnished to the petitioners so as to enable them to make submissions and contentions in the matter. Thereafter, it is for the competent authority to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and take a decision in the mater without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the claim petitions. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge. bkn/-

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF NOTIFICATION DATED 17.12.2013 WITHOUT SCHEDULE ATTACHED. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER IN G.O(MS)NO.448/2017/RD DATED 29.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LSIT OF COMMERCIAL TENANTS PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.