T.S.Basheer vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the 1st respondent. The short facts are like this :

The petitioner and his brothers owned properties which were acquired for the purpose of expansion of the National Highway. The award was passed by the competent authority as per Section 3G of the National Highway Act. The petitioner moved an application for consideration of enhanced claim to the arbitrator -1st respondent. The same is dismissed as per Ext.P4 stating that it is time barred. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

This Court perused Ext.P4 order. The only reason stated in Ext.P4 is that the application is filed after one year. The same point is considered by a Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 30.3.2015 in W.A. No. 226/2015. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“19. While considering the question of limitation, what will be the period for making a claim for higher compensation under the NH Act is also germane for consideration. As there is no specific period provided for making such a claim necessarily the residuary clause under Article 113 has to be applied, which is three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. In this case, right to sue accrued when the amount is determined by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act, i.e. on 16/04/2010 . If the parties desire to proceed for arbitration, they have to file an application for referring the dispute for arbitration in terms of sub-section (5) which is akin to filing a suit within three years from the date when the amount is determined by the competent authority and informed to the land owner. If no such steps are taken within the said period, the Arbitrator is entitled to reject the claim as barred by limitation.”

In the light of the above dictum, it is clear that the time limit is 3 years. If that is the case, Ext.P4 is to be set aside and there can be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner :

1) Ext.P4 is set aside.

2) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in the light of para 19 of the judgment dated 30.3.2015 in W.A. No. 226/2015 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.