Pinky P.K vs Special Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 19981 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          PINKY P.K, D/O PRABHAKUMARI, 'VAIBHAV', NEAR
          UMAMAHESWARA TEMPLE, THOTTADA-PO, KANNUR DISTRICT,
          PIN-670007, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
          RAGESH.A.P, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN,
          'RAGADEEPAM', KIZHUTHALLY, THAZHE CHOVVA-PO,
          KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670018.

          BY ADVS.P.VENUGOPAL
          FERHA AZEEZ


RESPONDENTS:

    1     SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION(NH) UNIT 2,
          COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN-679002.

    2     SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,(L.A), 3RD FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,
          THALASSERI, PIN-670101.

    3     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THAVAKKARA,
          KANNUR, PIN-670002.

    4     NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER(N.H.), PUBLIC WORKS
          DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE COMPLEX, MUSEUM-PO,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033.

          BY ADVS.SMT. AMMINIKUTTY - SR.GP
          SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC,


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021
                                  -2-



                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to have been the owner

of 27¾ cents of land, comprised of in Re.Sy.No.65/2A

of Elayavoor Village, and she says that the said

extent has been acquired for the purposes of the 4th

respondent - National Highways Authority of India

(NHAI). She thereafter alleges that compensation

eligible to her, consequent to the acquisition of the

afore land, has been refused to her solely saying that

she had not produced the original of her title deeds

before the competent Authority.

2. The petitioner says that she has already

informed the competent Authority that the original

document with respect to her property had been

produced before the Special Tahsildar (Land

Acquisition), Thalassery, as early as in the year 2003

and that it had been lost from their office, thus

incapacitating her from producing the same at this

time.

WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021

3. The petitioner submits that she thus

presented Ext.P7 affidavit before the competent

Authority, clearly showing that she has not dealt with

the property or with her title document in any manner

contrary to law and that no interest had been created

thereon in favour of any other third person. She says

that, in spite of this, Ext.P10 communication has now

been issued to her, informing that the Award in her

favour will not be honoured, unless she produces the

original of the title document. The petitioner asserts

that this is an impossible condition, since the

original of her document is no longer with her; and

therefore, prays that this Court direct the competent

Authority to disburse the amounts eligible to her

without insisting on the afore condition.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Venugopal - learned

counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Mathews K. Philip -

learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI and

Smt.K.Amminkutty - learned Senior Government Pleader,

appearing for the official respondents. WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021

5. Smt.K.Amminikutty - learned Senior Government

Pleader, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P10,

when the petitioner had earlier made the afore

submissions before the competent Authority, she had

been told - through the letter dated 18.12.2003 - that

her original document was not available on the files

of the Special Tahsildar, Thalassery. She submitted

that, therefore, the petitioner's insistence for being

disbursed the amounts under the Award, in spite of

this, can only be seen to be mala fide; and that the

she has already been, therefore, informed through

Ext.P10 that, in similar matters, the Awards have been

referred to the competent Civil Court, which will be

done in her case also. She thus prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is

without doubt that the demand of the competent

Authority is only that the original of the title

document with respect to the property in question must

be produced by the petitioner for disbursement of the WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021

amounts under the Award. The petitioner, however,

maintains that the document in question has been

irretrievably lost and that she suspects this to have

happened from the office of the Special Tahsildar,

Thalassery, as early as in the year 2003.

7. The afore disputation between the parties are

certainly in the realm of facts, which this Court

cannot adjudicate or resolve, while acting under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is,

therefore, now necessary is to balance the rival

interests, to the extent permissible in law,

sufficiently ensuring that the official respondents

are not put to any prejudice in future on account of

any claim that may be raised by any other person,

based on the original title deed.

8. I am, therefore, of the opinion that if the

petitioner produces a certified copy of her title deed

obtained from the office of the jurisdictional Sub

Registrar, and file an undertaking, in the form of an

affidavit, before the competent Authority that she WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021

will hold them indemnified against any future claim

arising with respect to the property based on the

original title document, the amounts under the Award

can certainly be disbursed to her.

9. I clarify that I am persuaded to the afore

course also because the Award has been already

published by the competent Authority under the

mandate of Section 34 of the Act and since it is not

brought to my notice, even by the learned Senior

Government Pleader, that any competing claims have

been raised by any person until now. I, therefore,

feel it justified for this Court to presume that such

claims have not been made as of now, though I cannot

discount that it may be made in the future.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and leave

liberty to the petitioner to apply and obtain a

certified copy of the title document and to produce

the same before the competent Authority, along with an

affidavit to the afore effect sworn before a competent

Notary Public; in which event, the said Authority will WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021

act upon it and takes steps for disbursement of the

eligible amounts under the Award to the petitioner

without any avoidable delay, but not later than one

month from the date on which the certified copy of the

document and affidavit as afore is presented before it

by the petitioner.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18627/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 03.01.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2020

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRSE RESPONDENT ON 08.06.2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.07.2020 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER(DATED NIL) ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH A LEGIBLE/TYPEWRITTEN COPY

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND WP(C) NO. 18627 OF 2021

RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LAC-

6359 DATED 13.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE