Sayed Koya S.V vs Administrator
2021 Latest Caselaw 8282 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.6458 OF 2021(F)


PETITIONERS:

     1       SAYED KOYA S.V
             AGED 60 YEARS
             S/O.KOYILATTU KUNJIKOYA THANGAL, SHAIKINTE
             VEEDU, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

     2       AYSHOMMABI
             SHAIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

     3       BEEVI
             SHAIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

     4       MUTHUKOYA THANGAL
             SHAIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

     5       SAYED MOHAMMED SHAMSUDDIN THANGAL
             SHAIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

     6       FATHIMA BEEVI
             SHAIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

     7       SAYED ABDUL KADER POOKUNHIKOYA THANGAL
             SHAIKINTE VEEDU, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

     8       SUHARABI
             PUTHIYA AZHIKKAKAM, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP.

     9       SAYYID MOHAMMED NASARUDHEEN
             PUTHIYA AZHIKKAKAM, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

     10      SAYYID MOHAMMED SAADUDHEEN
             PUTHIYA AZHIKKAKAM, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
                               -2-
WP(C).No.6458 OF 2021(F)

              SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
              SMT.D.S.THUSHARA
              SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
              SMT.T.V.NEEMA

RESPONDENTS:

       1      ADMINISTRATOR,
              UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI 682
              555

       2      LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
              UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI 682
              555

              R BY SRI S MANU- SR CGC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP          FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                     -3-
WP(C).No.6458 OF 2021(F)

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners lands were acquired for the purpose of

construction of LPG godown at Andrott, as per notification

issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (4)

of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide

notification No.34/59/2006/LR dated 12.02.2012. The

petitioners were awarded compensation as per Ext.P1 award

dated 12.11.2013. After the receipt of Ext.P2 notice dated

28.01.2014, the petitioners received the amount of

compensation under protest, on 10.02.2014. Dissatisfied with

the amount of compensation, the petitioners preferred LAR

No.10 of 2015 before the District Court, Kavaratti. By Ext.P3

judgment dated 28.01.2019, the Reference Court enhanced

the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, from

Rs.2,800/- per sq.meter to Rs.6,970/- per sq.meter. In

Ext.P3, the compensation was fixed in terms of the provisions

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Claiming benefit under

sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the petitioners

WP(C).No.6458 OF 2021(F)

submitted Exts.P6 and P7 representations dated 27.11.2020

and 12.01.2021 respectively, before the 2 nd respondent Land

Acquisition Officer. The petitioners have filed this writ petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of

mandamus commanding the respondents to pay

compensation in respect of the lands covered by Ext.P1, as

per Sections 24 and 26 of the Act of 2013, within a time limit

to be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

also the learned Senior Central Government Counsel for the

respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point

out the pendency of Exts.P6 and P7 representations before

the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned Senior Central Government Counsel

would submit that the 2nd respondent will consider Exts.P6 and

P7 representations made by the petitioners and pass

appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioners and

after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a

time limit to be fixed by this Court.

WP(C).No.6458 OF 2021(F)

5. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of,

leaving open legal and factual contentions raised by the

petitioners, by directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and

pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 and P7 representations

made by the petitioners, with notice to the petitioners and

after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

6. 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

of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are

WP(C).No.6458 OF 2021(F)

contrary to what has been injected by law.

7. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in

this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall take an appropriate

decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking

note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on

the point.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/12/3

WP(C).No.6458 OF 2021(F)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.F.34/59/2006/LR DATED 12.11.2013

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS ON 28.1.2014

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN LAR 10/2015 OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE,KAVARTTI DATED 28.1.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUE NAMELY THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013.(RELEVANT PAGES)

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2020

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 12.1.2021