Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs State Of Kerala on 19 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942
RP.No.1123 OF 2017(Y) IN WP(C). 30393/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2016 IN WPC 30393/2016 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1-3 IN W.P.(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENTOF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,KAKKANAD-682 030.
3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
LAND ACQUISITION, KOCHI REFINERIES LTD., VYTTILA,
TRIPPUNITHURA.
BY SMT. LATHA T. THANKAPPAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
1 MRS. MARY KURUVILA
W/O C.V.KURUVILLA, CHUNDANGAL HOUSE, OPP. TO HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
2 C.V.KURUVILLA
S/O VARKEY, CHUNDANGAL HOUSE, OPP. TO HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
3 MARTIN KURUVILLA
S/O C.V.KURUVILLA, CHUNDANGAL HOUSE, OPP. TO HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
4 MOHAN KURUVILLA
S/O C.V.KURUVILLA, CHUNDANGAL HOUSE, OPP. TO HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
5 MADHU KURUVILLA
S/O C.V.KURUVILLA, CHUNDANGAL HOUSE, OPP. TO HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, HIGH COURT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.
6 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
INFOPARK, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD-682 030.
BY SRI. K.J.KURIECHEN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-03-2021, THE
COURT ON 19.03.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No. 1123/2017
in W.P.(C) No. 30393/2016 :2:
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2021.
ORDER
The review petition is filed by the respondents in W.P.(C) No.
30393 of 2016 seeking to review the judgment dated 03.11.2016,
whereby this Court found that the writ petitioners have not received
the amount in the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called 'Act,
1894), even though the possession of the property of the writ
petitioners were taken pursuant to the LAC Nos. 39/2006, 40/2006
and 45/2006 and the amounts were deposited before the Reference
Court on 10.05.2007. However reference files were returned by the
Reference Court holding that there is a difference in the extent of
property acquired and the documents produced and hence, the
reference is returned to the Land Acquisition Officer concerned.
Similar and typical orders were passed in all the above land acquisition
cases and the orders are apparently dated 08.10.2014 and it was
accordingly that a direction was issued to the third review petitioner
i.e., the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Kochi Refineries Ltd.,
Tripunithura. Apparently, acquisitions were made on the basis of the
requisition made by the Chief Executive Officer, INFOPARK,
R.P. No. 1123/2017
Kusumagiri, Kakkanad.
2. The contentions raised in the Review Petition is that in re-
survey, the land possessed by the writ petitioners were re-fixed and
the area had been declared as 21.40 Ares in Re-survey No. 640/3 in
Block No. 9 of Kakkanad Village and according to the LAC No. 45/2006
award No. 32/2007 dated 10.05.2007 was passed. According to the
Review Petitioners, similar awards were passed after re-fixing the area
of the property acquired. However, the awards in LACs were passed
after verifying the Basic Tax Register and the thandaper account
register, evident from Annexures A 1 to A8 produced along with the
Review Petitions.
3. Even according to the Review Petitioners, some errors
occurred in re-survey records and perhaps the old survey numbers
shown in the other documents were mistakenly written as survey
numbers owned by others.
4. The sum and substance of the contention is that once the
award was passed by the authority, no award can be passed again,
unless it is quashed by a competent judicial forum and therefore, since
the awards were passed and the same are still in force, the Act does
not allow the authority to pass another award in the same case. It is
R.P. No. 1123/2017
also pointed out that even though the writ petitioners had produced
the documents before a judicial forum, the Land Acquisition Officer is
not permitted to pass the award beyond the area of the land approved
by the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, who is the
competent authority.
5. Originally, the resurvey records came into force during 1990-
1991 and the beneficiaries had been given sufficient chances and
opportunities to raise the objections and cure the mistakes, if any,
created in resurvey records. It is also submitted that the writ
petitioners have not taken any steps to correct the mistakes occurred,
if any, in resurvey records. Since the awards were passed during 2007
and the acquired land had been taken possession by issuing warrant
for the enforcement of the eviction and had been handed over to the
requisitioning authority, nothing can be done to re-identify the extent
of the property. Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that the awards were
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer based on Section 31(2) of the
Act, 1894 and had been referred to the concerned Sub Court by the
Special Tahsildar.
6. That apart, it is contended that notifications under Sections
4(1) and 6(1) were published in accordance with the Act, 1894 and the
R.P. No. 1123/2017
acquisition proceedings were completed. Therefore, passing of a fresh
award may give rise to a further question as to whether the provisions
of Act 30 of 2013 will be applicable in passing a fresh award,
particularly in view of Section 24 of Act 30 of 2013. Therefore, it was
submitted that the said crucial fact could not be brought to this Court
during the course of arguments and the error has crept in.
7. I have heard Smt. Latha T. Thankappan for the State and its
officials and Sri. K. J. Kuriachen appeared for the writ petitioners, and
perused the pleadings and documents on record.
8. It is significant to note that the writ petition was disposed of
on the basis of the submission made by the learned Special
Government Pleader, on instructions, that awards will be passed in
accordance with the report of the references within a time frame. It is
an admitted fact that awards were passed under Section 31(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the amounts were deposited in the
reference court. Obviously, the writ petitioners have not participated
in the acquisition proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer. It
was accordingly that the methodology provided under Section 31(2)
was employed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the amounts were
deposited. Anyhow, the reference court found that there is difference
R.P. No. 1123/2017
in the extent of the property acquired and the title deeds produced by
the writ petitioners and it was accordingly that awards were returned
to the Land Acquisition Officer obviously for identifying the said issue
and to pass appropriate orders/awards. The order is dated
08.10.2014, evident from Ext. P18.
9. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for
the writ petitioners have submitted that similar orders were passed in
regard to the other land acquisition cases also. Anyway, it is an
admitted fact that the amounts were deposited before the reference
court on 10.05.2007 and the awards were returned probably for
passing appropriate orders/awards, taking into account the extent of
property shown in the title deed of the property. It is also an
admitted fact that the references returned were received by the Land
Acquisition Officer and having not passed any orders/award, the writ
petition was filed by the petitioners seeking appropriate directions. It
is quite clear and evident from the judgment that it was on the basis of
the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader that
a direction was issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass awards as
per the return of the references mentioned within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
R.P. No. 1123/2017
10. Taking note of the statutory benefits that the writ petitioners
are entitled to get as per law, the writ petitioners were already
directed to produce the original title deeds before the Land Acquisition
Officer in order to enable him to pass awards. It is also significant to
note that the orders passed by the Reference Court are not challenged
by the Government and its officials. Which thus means, the orders
passed by the court were acceptable to the review petitioners and the
Review Petitioners, in my considered opinion, ought to have passed
appropriate orders/awards, instead of keeping the references returned
pending for several years. Therefore, from the facts and
circumstances, it is quite clear and evident that there is no error
apparent on the face of the record or any other legal infirmities
justifying review of the judgment.
Needless to say, Review Petition fails and accordingly, it is
dismissed.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION U/S.6 OF THE ACT
DATED 06/10/2006.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX
REGISTER IN SY. NO.640/1 AND 2 WHICH IS
POSSESSION BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE TANDAPER ACCOUNT
NO.813 IN SY. NO.640/1 AND 2.
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF BASIC TAX REGISTER IN
SY. NO.640/3(OLD SY. NO.382/2) WHICH IS
POSSESSED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE TANDAPER
ACCOUNT NO.814 IN SY. NO.640/3.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF BASIC TAX REGISTER IN SY.
NO.641/25 WHICH IS POSSESSED BY PETITIONERS 2
TO 5.
ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE TANDAPER
ACCOUNT NO.2552 IN RE-SY. NO. 641/25.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED AT THE TIME
OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES IN LAC
NO.39/2006.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED AT THE TIME
OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES IN LAC NO.
40/2006.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED AT THE TIME
OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTIES IN LAC NO.
45/2006.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS To Judge.
rv
