V.I.Abdul Saleem vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 432 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 29257 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          V.I.ABDUL SALEEM, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, VALIYAKATH
          HOUSE, CHULOOR P.O., PIN - 680 567 REPRESENTED
          BY POWR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SATHAR R.A.,
          RAYAMMARAKKARVEETTIL HOUSE, VALAPAD P.O.,
          PIN - 680 567, EDATHURUTHY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT.

          C.P.WILSON
          ROSE MICHAEL



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          KAKAKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 032.

    3     THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
          (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR), LA NO.1, LA NO.1 KOCHI METRO RAIL
          PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

    4     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD.
          8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI - 682 011.

          K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
          SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC
          SPL GP - JAFFER KHAN



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 29257 OF 2021
                                  2



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that an extent of 2.22 Ares of land, out

of 6.43 Ares, has been acquired for the purpose of Kochi Metro

Rail Ltd. (KMRL). He says that, through this acquisition, the

septic tank, domestic water tank and fire water tank appended

to the building situated thereon, will require to be demolished

and therefore, that same will become totally useless in future.

He says that he, therefore, has preferred Ext.P2 application

before the competent Authority and prays that same be directed

to be taken up and disposed of within a time frame to be fixed

by this Court.

2. In response to the afore submissions of Smt.Rose

Michael - learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri.Brijesh Mohan

- learned counsel, representing the learned Standing Counsel

for the KMRL Smt.M.U.Vijayalakshmi, submitted that the

petitioner's plea for acquisition of the entire building and

property is without basis, since no portion of the building has

been touched or taken over during the acquisition. He

submitted that, therefore, any plea of the petitioner edificed on

Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

('Fair Compensation Act' for short) is untenable and that this WP(C) NO. 29257 OF 2021

has already been rejected by the competent Authority, while

passing the Award.

3. Sri.Jaffar Khan - learned Special Government Pleader,

also adopted the afore submissions of Sri.Brijesh Mohan saying

that, as long as the petitioner is not able to show that the

criterion under Section 94 of the Fair Compensation Act have

attracted, he cannot seek benefits thereunder and that the

competent Authority has already considered his plea while

issuing the Award in question.

4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is without

doubt that the petitioner can obtain any relief under Section 94

of the "Fair Compensation Act", only if the specific criteria

thereunder are satisfied.

5. As far as the parties are concerned, there is a clear

disputation as to whether any portion of the building will be or

has been taken over during the acquisition and as to whether

the balance would be rendered useless. Since the petitioner

says that this has not been touched upon in the Award and that

the acquired property and portions of the building has not yet

been taken possession of, I am of the view that there will be no

prejudice to anyone if Ext.P2 is directed to be taken up and

disposed of by the third respondent within a time frame. WP(C) NO. 29257 OF 2021

6. Resultantly, without entering into the merits of any of

the contentions of the rival parties, I allow this writ petition,

leaving all of open - including as to whether any portion of the

building of the petitioner has been acquired - and direct the

third respondent to take up Ext.P2 application and dispose of

the same, after affording him and the authorised official of the

KMRL an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

7. In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of afore

directions, I direct the petitioner, as also the competent

Authority of the KMRL, to mark appearance before the third

respondent at 11 a.m. on 20.01.2022; on which day, the said

Authority will either hear them, or fix another convenient date

for hearing and complete the proceedings within the time frame

above fixed.

I reiteratingly clarify that I have not considered the

maintainability of Ext.P2 and that this will also be a issue to be

decided by the third respondent in terms of law.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 29257 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29257/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE LARR ACT 2013 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.1 KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION KAKANAD DATED 19/10/2020.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 21/06/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE DATED 16/09/2021.