2025:KER:29538 W.A.No.1981 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 1981 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.36709 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/1 st RESPONDENT: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN – 110001. 2 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PIU COCHIN, PIN – 683104. BY ADVS. T.C.KRISHNA, SCGC N.J.ASHWIN, CGC RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 JEKSY ALIAS LEONS JEKSY, AGED 67 YEARS S/O JOKIM BAVA, THOTTAKATH HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682034. 2025:KER:29538 W.A.No.1981 of 2024 2 2 COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR – LA (NH – 66), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR - LA (NH - 66), NORTH PARAVUR P. O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683513. 3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR - LA (NH - 66), UNIT - 1, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR -LA (NH), NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683513. BY ADVS. C.P.WILSON ROSE MICHAEL SMT.SUDHADEVI – SPL.G.P. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29538 W.A.No.1981 of 2024 3 NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. & S.MANU, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1981 of 2024 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT S.MANU, J. Appellants are challenging the judgment in W.P.(C)No.36709/2022. First Respondent herein filed the writ petition and the Appellants and respondents 2 and 3 herein were the Respondents. The learned Single Judge disposed the writ petition along with a batch of similar cases by common judgment dated 21 March 2024. This Court considered a batch of ten writ appeals filed by the Union of India and National Highway Authority of India from various writ petitions disposed by the common judgment dated 21 March 2024. The appeals were disposed of by common judgment dated 18 February 2025. Conclusions and observations in the common judgment in Writ Appeal Nos.718 of 2024 and connected cases would govern this appeal also. 2025:KER:29538 W.A.No.1981 of 2024 4 2. When this appeal was considered on 4 March 2025 we had called upon the State Authorities to place on record the bifurcation of compensation calculated with respect to the property of the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent has filed affidavit giving the details of amount paid for acquired portion and stating that the Respondent is not entitled for compensation under Section 3G(7) and Section 28 of the NH Act and RFCTLARR Act respectively. According to the 2nd Respondent, the balance portion of the building after demolition is stable and safe and only a small portion was demolished which would not affect the utility of the building. Further, it is contended that no loss was caused to the 1st Respondent on account of injurious affection and severance. Details furnished in tabular form in the affidavit are extracted hereunder:- W.A. No. Name of the Claimant Particulars of Property Acquired Amount Paid for the acquired portion Amount paid for the unacquired portion Jeksy Alias Leons Jeksy 0.0131 Ha (1.31 Ares) of land and structure Land value Rs.22,72,541.9/- Structure value Rs.25,67,215.20/- It is found that claimant is not entititled for compensation u/s.3G(7) and 2025:KER:29538 W.A.No.1981 of 2024 5 Total compensation including all statutory benefits Rs.1,09,82,292/- Sec.28 of NH Act and RFCTLARR Act respectively 3. As it was noticed in the judgment in Writ Appeal No.718/2024 and connected cases grievances regarding compensation are to be raised before the competent authority or in the arbitration proceedings as in the case may be. The authority/ arbitrator can call for the details and take appropriate decision regarding all claims including compensation for unacquired portions. If the decision is not satisfactory, the 1st Respondent can take up the matter further in accordance with law. 4. With the above observations and also clarifying that we have not examined the merits of the claims of the 1st Respondent, this writ appeal is disposed of. Sd/- NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S.MANU JUDGE skj