Kerala High Court
The Chief Commander vs The Chief Commander on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942
RP.No.571 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 21331/2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 21331/2017 DATED 21-08-
2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/4th RESPONDENT IN WPC:
THE CHIEF COMMANDER, INDIAN COAST GUARD
INDIAN COAST GUARD,VIZHINJAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 521.
BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 J.SARATHCHANDRAN NAIR
S/O. JANARDANAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS,RESIDING
AT CHANDRAMANGALAM, T C 7/1385-1, VETTA
MUKKU, THIRUMALA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
006.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE(B) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043.
4 THE DISTRICT LEVEL PURCHASE COMMITTEE
CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043.
R1-2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER G. RANJITA
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Review Petition No.571 of 2018
in
W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017
..2..
Review Petition No.571 of 2018
in
W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017
--------------------------------------
ORDER
The fourth respondent in the writ petition has instituted
this review petition, seeking review of the judgment in the writ
petition. The parties and documents are referred to in this order, as
they appear in the writ petition.
2. The Chief Commander of the Indian Coast Guard,
the fourth respondent, has required the State Government to
acquire two parcels of land in the possession of the petitioner for the
purposes of the Indian Coast Guard. Proceedings were accordingly
initiated for the said purpose by the competent authority of the
State Government, and as part of the said proceedings, the District
Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) constituted by the State
Government has fixed the land value of the land in the possession of
the petitioner. Since the petitioner has agreed to convey the land in
his possession straight away to the fourth respondent at the rate
Review Petition No.571 of 2018
in
W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017
..3..
fixed by the DLPC by executing Ext.P10 consent letter, the District
Collector gave a communication to the fourth respondent on
21.03.2016 requiring him to get the sale deed of the land directly
from the petitioner by paying the land value in terms of the decision
of the DLPC. Since steps have not been taken by the fourth
respondent to get sale deed of the land from the petitioner by
paying the land value in terms of the decision of the DLPC as
required by the District Collector in terms of his letter dated
21.03.2016, the petitioner has instituted the writ petition on
27.06.2017 alleging that in the light of Ext.P10 consent letter, he is
unable to make use of the land for other purposes. This court
disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage itself directing
the fourth respondent to disburse the amounts payable to the
petitioner for the land within two months. It was also directed that
if the amounts are not paid within the aforesaid time, the petitioner
shall be paid interest also for the amounts at the rate of 12% per
annum.
3. The fourth respondent has not complied with the
direction in the judgment to effect payment due to the petitioner
within two months. Instead, the fourth respondent preferred I.A. No.
Review Petition No.571 of 2018
in
W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017
..4..
19025 of 2017 seeking extension of the time prescribed in the
judgment. This Court dismissed the above interlocutory application
on 07.12.2017 taking the view that if the amounts due could not be
paid within the time stipulated, the amount can be paid with interest
as clarified in the judgment itself.
4. The review petition was filed in the meanwhile on
05.07.2018 contending that the judgment in the writ petition was
rendered on an incorrect assumption that the petitioner has already
surrendered the land to the fourth respondent; that the fourth
respondent is yet to obtain possession of the land from the
petitioner and that the delay in getting the sale deed of the land is
due to the delay in obtaining appropriate sanction from the
concerned department of the Central Government for acquiring the
land.
5. Heard the learned Central Government Counsel for
the review petitioner as also the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. It is seen that the petitioner had no case in the
writ petition that he had surrendered the land referred to in the writ
petition to the fourth respondent. The case set out by the petitioner
in the writ petition, on the other hand, was that since the copies of
Review Petition No.571 of 2018
in
W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017
..5..
the documents of title of the land have already been collected from
the petitioner, he is unable to make use of the land for any other
purpose. The prayers sought in the writ petition, in the
circumstances, was for a declaration that the consent letter issued
by him has become unenforcible. Alternatively, the petitioner has
also sought directions to the fourth respondent to pay compensation
fixed for acquisition of the land forthwith. As revealed from the
judgment itself, the writ petition was disposed of with the directions
aforesaid on the incorrect assumption that the petitioner had
surrendered the land to the fourth respondent on 14.12.2015.
Similarly, it is seen that it is on that premise, this court dismissed
even the interlocutory application filed by the fourth respondent for
extension of time.
7. In the course of the arguments, it was submitted
by the learned counsel for the parties that the fourth respondent
has taken the sale deed of the land from the petitioner during the
pendency of the review petition on 03.12.2018 after paying the land
value fixed by the DLPC. It was, however, submitted by the learned
counsel for the fourth respondent that the petitioner has not been
paid interest as directed by this court in view of the pendency of
Review Petition No.571 of 2018
in
W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017
..6..
this proceedings.
8. In this context, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has executed
Ext.P10 consent letter on 14.12.2015 agreeing to sell the land to the
fourth respondent at the land value fixed by the DLPC, sale deed
has been obtained from him by the fourth respondent only after
almost 3 ½ years, on 03.12.2018. According to the learned counsel,
the equitable relief granted by this court to the petitioner for
delayed payment for the amounts due, in the circumstances, is not
liable to be recalled.
9. No doubt, the fourth respondent has not obtained
sale deed from the petitioner within a reasonable time, and there
was considerable delay on the part of the fourth respondent in
taking the sale deed from the petitioner. Certainly, there is
justification for the petitioner in claiming equitable relief for the
delay in providing the land value of the property. But, insofar as it
is found that the directions in the judgment were rendered on the
incorrect assumption that the petitioner who has surrendered the
land to the fourth respondent as early as on 14.12.2015 did not get
the land value despite the lapse of almost 18 months, I am of the
Review Petition No.571 of 2018
in
W.P.(C) No.21331 of 2017
..7..
view that the directions are vitiated by errors apparent on the face
of the records. Equitable relief, if any, to be granted to the parties to
a proceedings is to be worked out on an appreciation of the true
facts.
In the circumstances, the review petition is allowed and
the judgment dated 21.08.2017 is recalled. Registry is directed to
list the writ petition for admission as per roster.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
ds 07.01.2021
