Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Kerala · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4087 (KER)

JAMSHEER T.K v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

WP(C)/8479/2025 · 2025-03-25

T R Ravi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

WP(C) NO. 8479 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:25810 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 8479 OF 2025 PETITIONERS: 1 JAMSHEER T.K AGED 43 YEARS S/O. LATE MUHAMMAD, JUAI MAHAL (H), THIKKODI POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JUNAIDA, AGED 45 YEARS,W/O. ABDUL SALAM, JAAS VILLA, THIKKODI POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 529 2 LATHEEF THONDIKKANDI AGED 50 YEARS S/O. LATE MUHAMMAD, LAZLI (H), THIKKODI POST, CHINGAPURAM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JUNAIDA, AGED 45 YEARS,W/O. ABDUL SALAM, JAAS VILLA, THIKKODI POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 529 3 SHAFEEK AGED 40 YEARS S/O. LATE MUHAMMAD, THONDIKANDI (H), JUNAI MAHAL, THIKKODI POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JUNAIDA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL SALAM, JAAS VILLA, THIKKODI POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, PIN – 673 529 4 JUNAIDA AGED 45 YEARS W/O. ABDUL SALAM, JAAS VILLA ,THIKKODI POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 529 WP(C) NO. 8479 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:25810 5 FATHIMA AGED 65 YEARS W/O. LATE MUHAMMAD HAJI, THONDIKKANDI (H), THIKKODY POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 529 BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU SMT.POOJA K.S. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673 020 2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION (NH),COLLECTORATE, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673 020 3 SPECIAL TAHASILDAR LA(NH) VATAKARA, VATAKARA MINI CIVIL STATION, COURT ROAD, VATAKARA P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673 101 4 PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KOZHIKODE, LOTUS (H), 34/1487A, PROVIDENCE WOMENS COLLEGE ROAD,MALAMPARAMBA P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN – 673 009 SRI.BIDAN CHANDRAN, SC, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SMT. DEVISHREE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 8479 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:25810 T.R.RAVI.J ---------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.8479 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed this writ petition contending that the valuation of the structures should have been done following the Plinth Area Method and not in the Detailed Valuation Method. It is stated that the matter is now pending before the Arbitrator for consideration. A similar issue was considered by this Court in WPC.No.23994/2022 and connected cases. The cases were disposed of based on the submissions of the counsel for the NHAI, that peremptorily they have decided to follow the Plinth Area Method in cases of acquisition for the National Highway. 2. The counsel for the NHAI submits that a review petition has been filed with respect to the judgment in WPC.No.23994/2022 and connected cases, in order to clarify that the submission in the said case cannot be applied to cases where awards had been passed earlier and valuations were made earlier. 3. This Court in the said judgment did not specifically WP(C) NO. 8479 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:25810 decide as to which is the better method since there was absence of sufficient materials. This Court had clearly said that if the Detailed Valuation Method is better, then the claimant can always rely on that. This Court also said that wherever the cases are before the Arbitrator, the issue needs to be decided only at that stage. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to place their claim regarding the Plinth Area Method before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator shall consider the same on merits and ascertain whether the Plinth Area Method or the Detailed Valuation Method is better as far as the applicants before the Arbitrator are concerned, and pass appropriate orders. Sd/- T.R.RAVI sn JUDGE WP(C) NO. 8479 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:25810 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8479/2025 PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 02.06.2022 OF MR.MUHAMMED Exhibit P-2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 30.12.2022 ISSUED FROM KOYILANDY TALUK OFFICE Exhibit P-3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN LAC NO. 17/19, 630/19-3D1 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.06.2021 PERTAINING TO THE LANDED PROPERTY Exhibit P-4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P-5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 09.09.2021 IN W.P(C) NO. 13131/2021 Exhibit P-6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2021 IN WP (C) NO. 24412/2021