Temple Land Acquisition Dispute Over NH Widening To Be Decided Under National Highways Act, Not LARR Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not completely govern land acquisitions undertaken under the National Highways Act merely because of the Central Government notification issued under Section 105 of the 2013 Act.
Justice Easwaran S., delivered the judgment.
The petitioners were members of the family of a trustee of Thiruvangat Para Temple, Chelambra. Certain portions of the Temple were acquired for widening of the National Highway.
After the determination of compensation of ₹2.04 crore, under the provisions of the National Highways Act, the District Collector issued notice calling for the documents required for ascertaining the right of ownership and possession for awarding the compensation.
The temple is under the custody of the Malabar Devaswom Board for management of its affairs. After the issuance of the notice, the members of the trustee family did not appear and establish their rights over the affairs of the Temple.
The compensation awarded for acquisition of temple land for National Highway widening, was deposited before the District Court due to rival claims regarding entitlement. The reference court treated the matter as one under Section 77 of the 2013 Act and passed orders in favour of the Malabar Devaswom Board.
Members of the hereditary trustee family then challenged the proceedings, contending that acquisitions under the National Highways Act continue to be governed by Section 3H(4) of the 1956 Act, under which no statutory appeal lies.
The Court thus examined whether the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act will apply to an acquisition under the National Highways Act 1956 in view of a 2015 notification issued under the provisions of Section 105 of the 2013 Act.
The 2015 notification stated that the provision of the Right to Compensation Act relating to determination of the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement is applicable to the enactment specified in Fourth Schedule of the Act. The National Highways Act, 1956 is one of the Act specified in the fourth schedule.
The Court noted that the provisions of the Right to Compensation Act apply under two heads which includes, determination of compensation and procedure before the resettlement authority.
It observed that the purpose of the 2015 notification is to make the provision of the Act applicable towards determination of compensation so that the land owners are not deprived of their right of compensation for the land acquired.
“When proceedings for acquisition of land are initiated under the provisions of National Highways Act 1956, it will be farfetched to hold that once the compensation is determined, further proceedings continues to be governed by the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. It must be remembered that the National Highways Act 1956 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 intend to operate in different fields and that there cannot be a cross application of the both the Act.” Court added.
The Court thus held that the notification dated August 28, 2015 only imported provisions relating to “determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement” and did not displace the procedural mechanism under the National Highways Act.
“The procedures prescribed under the National Highways Act, 1956 as well as under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are entirely different and stand from different footings altogether.” the Court said.
The Court noted that disputes regarding entitlement or apportionment under the National Highways Act must necessarily be referred under Section 3H(4) of that Act to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
In contrast, Section 77 of the 2013 Act contemplates proceedings before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority constituted under Section 51 of that statute.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the District Court had acted without jurisdiction in treating the matter as a reference under Section 77 of the 2013 Act.
The Court reiterated the Division Bench ruling in Nafeesa v. Deputy Collector [2013 (4) KHC 868], which held that no appeal lies from a decision rendered under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act.
Since the reference itself was incompetent under Section 77, the consequential order was declared a nullity. The High Court held that parties could not be compelled to pursue an appellate remedy under the 2013 Act against an order passed without jurisdiction.
Exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court set aside both the original award and the subsequent order refusing impleadment of the petitioners.
The matter has now been restored to the District Court, Manjeri, with directions to reconsider the dispute strictly as a reference under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act.
Case Title: Sreeja v Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors.
Case No: OP(C) No. 1010 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
Counsel for Petitioner: M. R. Mini, Vinod Ravindranath, Meena K. A, K.C.Kiran. M. Devesh, Anish Antony Anathazhath, Thareeq Anver, Niveditha Prem. V, Sreemaya P.N
Counsel for Respondent: R Ranjanie (SC- Malabar Devaswom Board), P. Venugopal