Kerala High Court
Aleyamma vs The Special Tahsildar (L.A) ... on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
1 ALEYAMMA
AGED 82 YEARS
W/O. LATE N. R. VARGHESE @ THANKACHAN, NADAKKAL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, NOW
RESIDING AT NAMBIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM P. O., MANJALLOOR
VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 670.
2 LISSY SUNNY
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. SUNNY VARGHESE, NAMBIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM P. O.,
MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686 670.
3 LEENA ROY
AGED 38 YEARS
W/O. ROY JOSE, VADAKKAL HOUSE, AVOLI P. O., VAZHAKKULAM
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 670.
BY ADVS.
LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS
SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
SRI.TOM E. JACOB
RESPONDENT:
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A) GENERAL KOTTAYAM
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court asserting that
certain extents of their property has already been acquired by the
respondent for a public purpose; but that Ext.P3 Award has been
issued without following due procedure and without even affording
them an opportunity of being heard.
2. The petitioners allege that even earlier an Award had
been issued by the respondent on 30.08.2014, but that since it had
been issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
which stood repeal with effect from 01.04.2014 - they were
constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.34685/2014;
which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment, setting aside the said Award
and directing the respondent to only proceed as per Section 24(1)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Transparency Act' for short).
3. The petitioners allege that inspite of the specific
directions in Ext.P2 judgment, Ext.P3 Award has been issued
without affording them an opportunity of being heard and without
following the procedure as is mandated under the Transparency
WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2020
Act.
4. The petitioners, thereafter, submit that even though
Ext.P3 Award is ab initio void on account of the fact that they were
not even heard before it was issued, they preferred Ext.P4
application under Section 64 of the Transparency Act before the
respondent seeking that the Award be referred to the competent
Authority under its provisions, by way of abundant caution. The
petitioners explain that Ext.P4 was preferred not because they
accepted Ext.P3 Award, but only because they apprehended that,
otherwise, they would have been robbed of even such opportunity
in future, citing limitation by the respondent.
5. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Ext.P3 Award be set
aside and the respondent be directed to reconsider the matter,
leading to a fresh Award, following mandatory procedure under the
Transparency Act and after affording them necessary opportunities
of being heard.
6. I have heard Sri.Liji Vadakedom, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Hanil Kumar, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
7. Sri.Hanil Kumar submitted that this writ petition has now
WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2020
become infructuous because, based on Ext.P4 request, the
respondent has already referred Ext.P3 Award for adjudication to
the Court of Additional District Court, Kottayam, under the
provisions of Section 64 of the Transparency Act. He thus prayed
that this writ petition be closed. He then argued that no further
orders can be issued in this writ petition because the petitioners
can raise all their contentions before the District Court, Kottayam,
particularly because they are only aggrieved by the quantum of the
Award and are not challenging it on any other ground.
8. In reply, Sri.Liji Vadakedom, learned counsel for the
petitioners, reiterated that his clients had approached the
respondent through Ext.P4 only by way of abundant caution and not
because they had accepted Ext.P3 Award. He submitted that, in any
event of the matter, going by the various judgments of this Court
and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said Award - which has
been issued without hearing his clients - cannot be found to be valid
in law and resultantly, requires to be set aside as being void ab
initio.
9. On hearing Sri.Liji Vadakedom, the learned Special
Government Pleader submitted that if the petitioners require the
WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2020
Award to be reconsidered by the respondent, then it can be done
only if they deposit the amounts which they have received under it.
He submitted that, therefore, if this Court is inclined to set aside
Ext.P3 and to direct the respondent to reconsider the matter, then
the petitioners may be directed to refund the amounts received by
them, along applicable interest.
10. However, to this submission, Sri.Liji Vadakedom, replied
saying that his clients have not accepted the amounts under the
Award and that perhaps, the same may have been deposited in
Court as per the provisions of the Act.
11. When I consider the afore submissions, there can be
little doubt that if Ext.P3 has been issued without hearing the
petitioners and without following the mandatory procedure, then it
will require to be declared as being void ab initio.
12. Since the petitioners assert that they were not heard and
since Ext.P3 does not even indicate that they were given any such
opportunity; and further because, in Ext.P4, the petitioners have
specifically stated that their contentions were not considered by
the respondent, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition and
to direct the respondent to reconsider the matter, after verifying
WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2020
whether the amount under the Awards, or any part thereof, have
been received by the petitioners.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 is set
aside; with a consequential direction to the respondent to
reconsider the matter, leading to a fresh Award with respect to the
properties owned by the petitioners, after affording them necessary
opportunities of being heard and for producing the documents
relied upon them; thus culminating in an appropriate Award, as
expeditiously as is possible but not later than three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, while the afore exercise is completed, the
respondent will verify whether any amount has been received by
the petitioners under Ext.P3 Award and if so, they will be obligated
to return the same before a fresh Award is made in their favour.
Consequent to the afore directions, it goes without saying
that Ext.P4 application is rendered redundant and that the
reference made thereunder becomes without competence.
Resultantly, if reference has already made by the respondent
to the District Court, Kottayam on the basis of Ext.P4, all
proceedings consequent to it shall cease and shall be reckoned as
WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2020
having been closed by the said Court.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 6148 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6148/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.1/13-14(109NLA) DATED
30.8.2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2014 IN WP(C)
NO.34685/2014 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.3/17-18(109NLA) DATED
21.10.17 PASSED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
(RESPONDENT HEREIN) (OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT).
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED
18.4.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT HEREIN.
