Kerala High Court
Jainulavudheen vs The District Collector on 21 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 553 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 JAINULAVUDHEEN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O NOORMUHAMMED, AENICKAL HOUSE, ANAPPURAM,
KINASSERY POST, PALAKKAD-, PIN - 678701
2 ASHARAF ALI.A
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, 7/511, KULACHI HOUSE,
KIZHAKKETHALA, KODUVAYUR POST, ALAKKAD,
PIN - 678501
3 NOUFAL
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O HASSAN, THEKKEKUDY, VALLAM, RAYONPURAM POST,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683543
4 ABDUL SAMAD
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, CHIRAYILAN, KUPPASSERY,
KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
5 ANSARMON
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O KHALID, THELAMPURAM HOUSE, KANDATHARA, ALLAPRA
P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
6 SARAMMA PAULOSE
AGED 74 YEARS
W/O PAULOSE, KANIYADAN, 9/324, PRALAYAKKAD,
KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
7 JIJI SHEJI
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O LATE SHEJI PAUL, KANIYADAN, 9/324,
PRALAYAKKAD, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
8 ALONA SARA SHEJI
AGED 20 YEARS
D/O LATE SHEJI PAUL, KANIYADAN, 9/324,
PRALAYAKKAD, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
W.P.(C). No.553 of 2024 :2:
9 IRIN SOSA SHEJI
AGED 16 YEARS
D/O LATE SHEJI FAUL, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER JIJI
SHEJI, W/O LATE SHEJI PAUL, KANIYADAN, 9/324,
PRALAYAKKAD, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
10 AAN MARY SHEJI
AGED 15 YEARS
D/O LATE SHEJI PAUL, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER JIJI
SHEJI, W/O LATE SHEJI PAUL,KANIYADAN, 9/324,
PRALAYAKKAD, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 683545
11 MOHAMMED IMTYAZ
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O N.K.HASHIM, NASEEM ARCADE, 3/243, PIPELINE
ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
BY ADVS.
SABU GEORGE
P.B.KRISHNAN
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE, KENATHUPARAMBU,
KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678013
2 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, (LA)
KOCHI -BENGALURU INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR, KANJIKODE,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678621
3 P.M.ABDUL SHAHEED
S/O MOHAMMED, MILL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683542
BY ADVS.
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL.GP - S.RENJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.553 of 2024 :3:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.553 of 2024
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order and
for a declaration that the reference of the matter to the Land
Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority,
Palakkad as per Ext.P2 award is ultra vires the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. It is contended that the petitioners 1 to 5, 11, respondent
No.3 and one Mr.Sheji Paul, whose legal representatives are
petitioners 6 to 10 were the owners of a total extent of 10.5860
hectares of land in re-survey Nos.410/2, 409/4, 410/3, 410/8, 410/9,
424/2, 422/1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 423/1, 2, 425/1, 2, 3 in Block No.31 of
Pudussery Central village, Palakkad Taluk, obtained as per Ext.P1
sale deed. It is further contended that though the total extent is
mentioned as 10.5860 hectares in Ext.P1, the actual extent of land
available as per the measurement is 10.6275 hectares. The said
property was sought to be acquired for setting up the Kochi-
Bengaluru Industrial Corridor 2nd phase and Ext.P2 revised award
was passed. The petitioners would contend that regarding Sl. No.
(a) in Ext.P2, there is no dispute with regard to the title of the
property and right of the petitioners to obtain the compensation.
Though the petitioners requested the 2 nd respondent to disburse
the amount covered by Sl. No.(a), the 2 nd respondent referred the
entire matter to the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority, Palakkad (herein after referred to as 'the
Authority') under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013(herein after referred to as 'the Act, 2013') stating that
there exists dispute with regard to the other items in Sl. Nos. (b)
and (c). The petitioners would contend that a reference of a matter
of apportionment is liable to made only if there are rival claims
made to the Land Acquisition Officer and the present reference is
without jurisdiction and authority of law. Thereafter, before the
Authority, in LAR 175 of 2023, the petitioners submitted Ext.P3
petition as I. A. No.5 of 2023, wherein a request was made before
the Authority to disburse the amount awarded as per Sl. No.(a),
since there is no dispute with regard to the said property. The 2 nd
respondent filed Ext.P4 objection. The Authority by Ext.P5 order
dismissed Ext.P3 application holding that the Authority cannot by
itself separate the compensation amount which has been deposited
as a whole with respect to one single award and that it can only
answer the reference in its entirety and not in piece-meal manner.
It is under the said circumstances that this writ petition has been
filed challenging Ext.P5 order and seeking other consequential
reliefs.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent
where in paragraph 5 it is stated that as per Section 82(d) of the
Kerala Land Reforms Act 1967 maximum land that can be held by a
person/persons are limited to 10 standard Acres (4.048 hectares).
But in this case it exceeds the ceiling limit and a decision was
taken to defer the payment of compensation for 8.5300 hectare of
land in Re.Survey Nos. 409/4, 410/3, 410/8, 410/9, 424/2, 422/1,
422/2, 422/3, 422/4, 422/7, 422/8, 423/1,423/2, 425/1, 425/2,
423/3. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that as regards the
said property is concerned, though no claim other than that of the
claimants were received in the office of Special Tahasildar, it is
because of the said dispute that the amount was deposited before
the court. As regards the other extent of property covered by the
award it is also stated that the petitioners did not produce the sale
and purchase deeds to prove the ownership and title and further
that in respect of some extent of land, there are disputes pending.
4. Heard the rival contentions of both sides.
5. It is admitted that the land acquisition proceedings are
initiated and Ext.P2 award was also passed. The 2 nd respondent
had a specific case that the petitioners have held property over and
above the ceiling limit and if so they ought to have initiated
proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, but the learned
Special Government Pleader, Revenue submitted that till date, no
such proceedings have been initiated. A perusal of Ext.P5 order
will reveal that the issue was considered by the Reference Court
and entered into a finding that the issue regarding the aspect of
ceiling cannot be brought into a reference under the Act, 2013, but
the disputes cannot be overlooked at this point of time without
going into the merits. It can also be seen in Ext.P5 that there is a
finding to the effect that there is no dispute regarding item Nos. 1
and 2 properties, but the Reference Court did not consider Ext.P3
application taking a stand that the reference cannot be answered in
a piece-meal manner. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd
respondent it is without any doubt stated that no claim has been
raised in respect of Sl. No.(a) property in Ext.P2, other than the
claimants. Therefore, the only objection in respect of the property
in Sl. No.(a) in Ext.P2 is the objection raised as per Section 82(d) of
the Kerala Land Reforms Act. But it is seen that no proceedings
under the Land Reforms Act has been initiated till date.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the view that the petitioners need not wait for the reference
to be answered in the entirety in respect of raising a claim for
compensation for Sl. No.(a) property. If there is no dispute with
respect to Sl. No.(a) property the Reference Court has the power to
decide on the said aspect and therefore, the petitioners need not
be denied the amount awarded as per Ext.P2 till the reference is
answered in full by the Reference Court. Therefore, Ext.P5 is set
aside with a consequential direction to the Reference Court to
reconsider Ext.P3 application afresh and consider the request of
the petitioners for release of the amount in respect of the property
mentioned as Sl. No.(a) in Ext.P2 award, after considering the
objection raised by the Government and after hearing all the
necessary parties and pass fresh orders within an outer limit of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above said directions, the writ petition is disposed
of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 553/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 25-09-
2007 REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.7641 OF 2007 IN
PALAKKAD SRO
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED AWARD DATED
19-04-2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.5 OF 2023 IN LAR
175 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD, DATED
03-08-2023
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION STATEMENT
FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN I.A NO.5 OF
2023 IN LAR 175 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF
THE LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION
AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD,
DATED 25-09-2023
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02-12-2023 IN
I.A NO.5 OF 2023 IN LAR 175 OF 2023 ON
THE FILE OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AND
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY
PALAKKAD
