Kerala High Court
T.R.George vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942
W.P.(C) No.28487 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONER/S:
T.R.GEORGE, AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. RAFFEL, THOTTIYIL HOUSE,
KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 017.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN
SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR
SMT.BLOSSOM MATHEW
SRI.RENJIT JOHN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
3 THE TAHSILDAR
(LAND ACQUISITIN), KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE,
VYTTILA - 682 019.
4 CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MARINE DRIVE,
KOCHI - 682 011.
R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.28487 OF 2020(I)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 2.5
cents of property comprised in Survey No.168/1 of Elamkulam
Village covered by Will bearing No.08/73-3 executed by his father,
which was registered in the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam. Out of
the said property, an extent of 0.63 ares of land corresponding to
1.556 cents of land in Survey No.168/1-12 of Elamkulam Village
was acquired for the purpose of development of Pulleppady
Thammanam Road. The document marked as Ext.P1 is an
agreement dated 09.03.2016 entered into between the petitioner
and 2nd respondent District Collector. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2
application dated 21.11.2020, before the 2nd respondent District
Collector, which is one filed invoking the provisions under Section
64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The
petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the
2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 application and to refer the
question of adequacy of compensation of the acquired land, under
Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to the
authority constituted under Section 51 of the said Act.
W.P.(C) No.28487 OF 2020(I)
2. On 21.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for
admission, notice before admission was ordered to the
respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for
respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel took notice
for the 4th respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and
also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th respondent
Corporation.
4. Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act deals with reference to Authority. As per subsection (1) of
Section 64, any person interested who has not accepted the award
may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter
be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority,
as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement
of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom
it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under
Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation
among the persons interested. As per the first proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 64, the Collector shall, within a period of
W.P.(C) No.28487 OF 2020(I)
thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a
reference to the appropriate Authority. As per the second proviso
to sub-section (1), where the Collector fails to make such
reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to
the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the
Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.
5. As per sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act, the
application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award
is taken. As per the first proviso to sub-section (2), every such
application shall be made (a) if the person making it was present
or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his
award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b)
in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from
the Collector under Section 21, or within six months from the date
of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. As per
the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64, the Collector
may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period,
within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the
first proviso.
W.P.(C) No.28487 OF 2020(I)
6. In Sreedharan and others v. District Collector,
Malappuram and another [2020 (5) KHC 424], this Court held
that when the very object of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act is to ensure just and reasonable compensation to the affected
families, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay
under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64, the
competent Authority should take a liberal, pragmatic and non-
pedantic approach. The term 'sufficient cause' in the second
proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64 should be understood in
its proper spirit, philosophy and purpose, regard being had to the
fact that that term has to be applied in proper perspective to the
obtaining fact-situation. The conduct and attitude of a petitioner
relating to his inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be
taken into consideration. An application for condonation of delay
under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64 should
be drafted with careful concern and not in a casual manner
harbouring the notion that the competent Authority is required to
condone delay as a matter of course.
7. Having considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader
W.P.(C) No.28487 OF 2020(I)
for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for
the 4th respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions;
(i) In case, Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner under
Section 64 of the said Act is in order and filed within the time
limit specified, the 2nd respondent District Collector shall
consider the same and take an appropriate decision on that
application with notice to the petitioner and after affording
him an opportunity of being heard, within the statutory time
limit of 30 days.
(ii) In case, that application is belated, the petitioner shall file
an application for condonation of delay, within one week from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass
appropriate orders on that application, with notice to the
petitioner and after taking note of the law laid down by this
Court in Sreedharan [2020 (5) KHC 424].
8. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC
309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to
direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of
law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara Rao
A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that,
generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to
law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of
the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule
W.P.(C) No.28487 OF 2020(I)
of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary
to what has been injected by law.
9. Therefore, pursuant to the direction contained in this
judgment, the 2nd respondent District Collector shall consider
Ext.P2 application and take an appropriate decision on the matter,
strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant
statutory provisions and also the law on the point.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
JUDGE
MIN
W.P.(C) No.28487 OF 2020(I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
09.03.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
21.11.2020 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL
RECEIPT.
