Sukumaran E.K vs The District Collector Civil ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21330 Ker

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

               FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943

                                WP(C) NO. 7474 OF 2020

PETITIONERS:

      1        SUKUMARAN E.K
               AGED 60
               S/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, EDESSERYKUDIYIL HOUSE,
               MULAVOOR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-686673,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

      2        MUKUNTHAN.K.P,
               AGED 62 YEARS
               S/O.LATE PAAPPI, KAVUMKAL HOUSE,
               PERUMBALLOOR.P.O,
               MUVATTUPUZHA-686673,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               L.RAM MOHAN
               SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC



RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION
               ERNAKULAM-682030.

      2        THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
               KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      3        THE TAHASILDAR LA-NH-1 AND CIVIL STATION,
               KAKANADU-682030.

               BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER




               SRI.JAFAR KHAN- SR.GP




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                         2

W.P.(C)No. 7474 of 2020




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2021.

The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 order issued by

the District Collector, rejecting his request for the benefits

under the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Fair Compensation Act"),

solely on the ground that the Award, with respect to the

property acquired under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, was issued on 17.07.2017; while

Ext.R1(a) Government Order, making the benefits sought

for by the petitioner applicable, was issued much later on

29.12.2017,

2. The petitioner asserts that the above stand

W.P.(C)No. 7474 of 2020

taken by the District Collector in Ext.P5 is illegal, since,

even prior to Ext.R1(a) having been issued, the provisions

of the "Fair Compensation Act", had become applicable

statutorily; and, therefore, that the District Collector was

enjoined to consider his claim on its merits, rather than

have rejected it based on the date of Ext.R1(a).

3. Sri.Jafar Khan - learned Government Pleader,

conceded that even without Ext.R1(a) being made

applicable, the petitioner is entitled to be granted benefits

subject to all criterion and qualifications being satisfied

under the provisions of the "Fair Compensation Act". He

submitted that, therefore, the District Collector can

certainly reconsider the matter; but argued that, if the

petitioner is to obtain any benefit, he must qualify as per

the twin criterion under Section 3C(2) of the "Fair

Compensation Act". He contented that it is only if the

W.P.(C)No. 7474 of 2020

petitioner or his family does not own any other land, can

he even claim any benefit under the "Fair Compensation

Act". He, therefore prayed that this Court may allow

there aspects also to be considered by the District

Collector in terms of law.

4. In reply, Sri.L.Ram Mohan - learned counsel for

the petitioner, submitted that the afore contentions of the

learned Government Pleader are not accurate, if one

examines the provisions of Section 3C(6) of the "Fair

Compensation Act"; and thus prayed that the District

Collector be directed to advert to this provision also.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this

writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; with a consequential

direction to the District Collector to reconsider the claim

of the petitioner from the touchstone of Section 3C(2) of

the "Fair to Compensation Act" and after affording him an

W.P.(C)No. 7474 of 2020

opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible,

but not later than two months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, the dialectical contentions of the

parties on the various provisions of Section 3 of the 'Fair

Compensation Act", including Section 3C(6) thereof, will

be adverted to and specifically taken note of by the

District Collector and his opinion recorded in the resultant

order.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj/29.10.2021.

W.P.(C)No. 7474 of 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7474/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 26/11/18 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE EMPLOYER DATED 14/6/18 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY CLAIM MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER 8.2.2017.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY CLAIM MADE BY THE 2ND PETITIONER 8.2.17 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/11/19 BY 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING PETITIONERS CLAIM.