Koshy.T.Abraham, Rep. By Power Of ... vs District Collector, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7344 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 4361 OF 2015
PETITIONER:

            KOSHY.T.ABRAHAM, S/O KOSHY, AGED 68 YEARS,
            THARAYASSERIL HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA,
            REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
            GEORGEKUTTY, S/O MATHEW, AGED 50 YEARS,
            MARANGATTU HOUSE, LAUIKKADU, PERUNNAI P.O.,
            CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.JOSHI
            SMT.ELIZABETH KOSHY
            SRI.K.T.SAJU
            SMT.SIJI K.PAUL


RESPONDENTS:

    1       DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
            PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.

    2       THE DIRECTOR,
            KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT (KSTP),
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    3       THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT
            (KSTP), MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.

    4       THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
            (L.A.), KSTP, RANNI-689001.

            BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR[ GP],
            SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY[GP]


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4361 OF 2015
                               -2-

                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P4 proceedings of

the 3rd respondent - Executive Engineer of the

Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP), whereby,

his request for additional amounts, with respect

to the property acquired from him - including

solatium, interest and enhancement of land value

- has been declined on the ground that

acquisition was made on the basis of the value

fixed by the District Level Purchase Committee

(DLPC) and approved by the State Level Empowered

Committee (SLEC), under a Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Assistance provided by the World

Bank.

2. Sri.P.M.Joshi - learned counsel for the

petitioner, pertinently conceded that his client

has not moved any Land Acquisition Reference

against the acquisition, though he was fully

eligible to do so; and explained that this was WP(C) NO. 4361 OF 2015

because, he was under the impression that even

in negotiated purchase, amounts like solatium,

interest and eligible escalation in value would

be considered. He thus prayed that Ext.P4 be

quashed and the competent Authority be directed

to consider his client's claim, within a time

frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar - learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2

and the learned Government Pleader - Sri.Riyal

Devassy appearing for other respondents,

submitted that, as has been recorded in Ext.P4,

since the petitioner did not invoke his

statutory remedy of filing a Land Acquisition

Reference, the Authorities can offer no addition

to the amounts fixed with respect to his

property acquired, because it was done under the

agreements entered into by him with the

Requisitioning Authority as per the values fixed WP(C) NO. 4361 OF 2015

by the DLPC. He submitted that, therefore,

petitioner is now foreclosed from making any

such claim; and that this is evident from the

fact that he had chosen, consciously, not to

file a Reference against the Award.

4. I must say that there is force in the

afore submissions of Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar and

Sri.Riyal Devassy because, unless the petitioner

had invoked his statutory remedy against the

Award, he could not have claimed anything more

than what was fixed under the negotiated

purchase, as approved by the DLPC and the SLEC.

5. Of course, petitioner's remedy to file a

Land Acquisition Reference may still be open to

him, provided he is able to get over the rigour

of limitation; but for that purpose, I am

certain that the period when this writ petition

has been pending before this Court will require

to be excluded. This is the maximum latitude WP(C) NO. 4361 OF 2015

that this Court can show to him, in the given

circumstances.

In the afore scenario, I dispose of this

writ petition, without entering into the merits

of any of the rival contentions of the parties,

but leaving liberty to the petitioner to invoke

his statutory remedies, if he is so interested;

for which purpose, the period from 19.01.2015 -

when this writ petition was filed, and until the

date on which a certified copy of this judgment

is received, shall stand excluded from the ambit

of the rigour of limitation, if the petitioner

invokes his alternative remedy, as he may be

advised.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 4361 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4361/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 16.7.12 IN FAVOUR OF GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW.

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE T.O.(RT)NO.3016-

13-RD DATED 28.5.2013.

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.9.2014 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS.

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.12.2014 OF 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED AS PER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.