Kerala High Court
V.Krishna Shenoy vs State Of Kerala on 23 August, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
1
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 1ST BHADRA, 1947
WA NO. 885 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.06.2017 IN WP(C) NO.1509 OF 2017
--------------
APPELLANTS:
1 V.KRISHNA SHENOY, AGED 77 YEARS,
S/O.VENKATESWARAN SHENOY, KOTTUKULANGARA HOUSE,
11/299, THURAVOOR.P.O., ALAPUZHA.
2 V.RAMACHANDRA SHENOY,
S/O. VENKATESWARAN SHENOY, SHENOY NIVAS,
SENTHIL NAGAR, NEW CSI CHURCH, ZUZUVADI,
BEYYAPPALLY ROAD, HOSUR.
3 V.ANANDA SHENOY, S/O.VENKATESWARAN SHENOY,
KOTTUKULANGARA, VALAMANGALAM NORTH,
THURAVOOR, NOW RESIDING AT KOTTUKULANGARA,
45/1359, KANNAMPALLY ROAD, PACHALAM P.O., KOCHI.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.R.S.KUMAR
SMT.DEENA JOSEPH
SMT.DEEPA R MENON
SRI.K.V.SABU
SRI.SWATHY S ANIL
SRI.T.K.SHAJITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, ALAPUZHA-688001.
4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL,
ALAPPUZHA-688001.
5 THE SECRETARY, BLOCK PANCHAYATH,
PATTANAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688531.
BY SMT.N.SUDHADEVI, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT
ON 23.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
JUDGMENT
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
The proceedings initiated against the properties owned by the
appellants under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act,
1894'), for the construction of a Community Health Centre were
challenged before this Court by filing W.P(C) No.28198 of 2011. The
challenge raised was essentially regarding a notification issued under
Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, not followed by a declaration under
Section 6 within the prescribed period. On 19.06.2012, this Court
passed the following order:-
"There is a specific averment in the writ petition that for want
of declaration within the one year period, the acquisition
proceedings have elapsed.
2. In the counter affidavit, there is no denial of this averment.
In view of this, there will be an interim order directing that the
petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the property covered
by Ext.P1, in pursuance of the land acquisition proceedings in
question."
However, on 09.02.2015, this Court found that the petitioners are not
entitled to succeed and hence, dismissed the writ petition "without
prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge the award or seek
enhancement of compensation".
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
2. The petitioners have later instituted W.P(C) No.1509 of 2017,
contending that they are entitled for re-determination of
compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (for short, the 'Act, 2013').
3. A learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned
judgment found that the petitioners are not entitled to seek refuge
under the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, mainly because
though an award was passed under the earlier Act, the petitioners
have obtained stay from this Court, which was in force till 09.02.2015,
preventing the authorities from continuing with the proceedings.
Therefore, this Court found that there is no delay on the part of the
respondents in depositing the compensation, under the proviso to
Section 24(2), and thereby rejected the writ petition.
4. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ appeal is
preferred by the appellants herein.
5. Heard Sri.T.R.S.Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellants,
and Smt.N.Sudhadevi, the learned Special Government Pleader for
the respondents herein.
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
6. The appellants, as noticed earlier, placed reliance on the
proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, and contended that though
an award was passed, compensation thereunder was not deposited,
and hence, the proviso would apply.
7. For ease of reference, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013, and the proviso thereunder; read as follows:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), in
case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said Section 11
has been made five years or more prior to the commencement
of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been
taken or the compensation has not been paid the said
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate
Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of
such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation
in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited
in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries
specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the
said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of this Act."
8. Sub-section (2) to Section 24 of the Act, 2013, provides
that the proceedings taken under the Act, 1894, would be deemed to
have lapsed in the circumstances laid down thereunder. The proviso
thereto entitles the beneficiaries to compensation under the
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
provisions of the Act, 2013, in a situation where an award has been
passed and the compensation in respect of the majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the accounts of the beneficiaries.
The provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, have been explained
by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129].
9. The Apex Court held that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013, cannot be treated as part of Section 24(1)(b) and it has to
be treated only as part of Section 24(2). Insofar as the appellants
admit that they are not seeking the benefits under Section 24(2) and
only seeking the benefit of the proviso thereunder, the question
requires to be considered only with reference to the proviso. Section
24(2), as explained by the Apex Court in the afore judgment, provides
for the deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings on account of the
inaction of the authorities for five years or more prior to the
commencement of the Act, 2013. The Apex Court found that in cases
where possession has been taken, and no compensation has been
paid, there is no lapse. It is further found that in cases where the
compensation has been paid but possession has not been taken, then
also there is no lapse. The proviso thereunder, however, provides that
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
in cases where an award has been made and "compensation in respect
of the majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the accounts
of the beneficiaries," all the beneficiaries shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. In
the case at hand, it is the benefit of this proviso that is claimed by the
appellants, essentially contending that the compensation has been
deposited only after the period prescribed under the proviso. The
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment refused to accept the
afore contentions even on the face of the delayed deposit, insofar as
the amount could not be deposited on account of the interim order in
W.P(C) No.28198 of 2011, which was in force till 09.02.2015 when
the writ petition was dismissed. It is the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the appellants that the order of stay was only
against the dispossession of the appellants, and there was no
embargo in making payment/deposit.
10. The Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra)
has considered the effect of the interim order of the Court, finding as
under:-
"289. In the opinion of this Court it is not the intendment of the
2013 Act that those who have litigated should get benefits of
higher compensation as contemplated under Section 24 benefit is
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
conferred on all beneficiaries. It is not intended by the provisions
that in piecemeal the persons who have litigated and have
obtained the interim order should get the benefits of the provisions
of the 2013 Act. Those who have accepted the compensation
within 5 years and handed over the possession too, are to be
benefited, in case amount has not been deposited with respect to
majority of holdings. There are cases in which projects have come
up in part and as per plan rest of the area is required for planned
development with respect to which interim stays have been
obtained. It is not the intendment of the law to deliver advantage
to relentless litigants. It cannot be said hence, that it was due to
the inaction of the authorities that possession could not be taken
within 5 years. Public policy is not to foment or foster litigation but
put an end to it. In several instances, in various High Courts writ
petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge Benches and the writ
appeals were pending for a long time and in which, with respect
to part of land of the projects, efforts were made to obtain the
benefit of Section 24(2). Parliament in our view did not intend to
confer benefits to such litigants for the aforementioned reasons.
Litigation may be frivolous or may be worthy. Such litigants have
to stand on the strength of their own case and in such a case
provisions of Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, are clearly attracted and such
proceedings have to be continued under the provisions of the old
Act that would be in the spirit of Section 24(1)(b) itself of the 2013
Act. Section 6(b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides that
repeal will not affect the previous operation of any enactment so
repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Section
6(c) states that repeal would not affect any right, privilege,
obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any
enactment so repealed. When there is a provision itself in Section
24(1)(b) of continuance of the proceedings where award has been
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
passed under the 1894 Act, for the purposes of Section 24 as
provided in Section 24(b), the provisions of Section 114 is clearly
attracted so as the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, to the extent of non obstante clause of Section 24,
where possession has not been taken nor payment has been
made, there is a lapse, that too by the inaction of the authorities.
Any court's interim order cannot be said to be inaction of the
authorities or agencies; thus, time period is not to be included for
counting the 5 years period as envisaged in Section 24(2). As per
the proviso to Section 24(2), where possession has been taken,
but compensation has not been paid or deposited with respect to
majority of landholdings, all the beneficiaries would be entitled for
higher compensation only to that extent, the provisions of Section
114 of the 2013 Act, would be superseded but it would not
obliterate the general application of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897, which deals with effect of repeal except as
provided in Section 24(2) and its proviso.
......................
299. In cases where some landowners have chosen to take
recourse to litigation (which they have a right to) and have
obtained interim orders on taking possession or orders of status
quo, as a matter of practical reality it is not possible for the
authorities or State officials to take the possession or to make
payment of the compensation. In several instances, such interim
orders also impeded the making of an award. Now, so far as
awards (and compensation payments, pursuant to such
proceedings were concerned) the period provided for making of
awards under the 2013 Act (sic 1894 Act) could be excluded by
virtue of Explanation to Section 11-A. Thus, no fault of inaction
can be attributed to the authorities and those who had obtained
such interim orders, cannot benefit by their own action in filing
litigation, which may or may not be meritorious. Apart from the
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
question of merits, when there is an interim order with respect to
the possession or order of status quo or stay of further
proceedings, the authorities cannot proceed; nor can they pay
compensation. Their obligations are intertwined with the scheme
of land acquisition. It is observed that authorities may wait in the
proceedings till the interim order is vacated."
(Underlining supplied)
Thus, it is categorically held by the Apex Court that in cases where an
interim order with respect to possession/status quo/stay of other
proceedings is issued, the authorities may not be in a position to
proceed or to take possession.
In the light of the afore, we are of the opinion that the authorities
cannot be faulted for having waited till the final disposal of W.P(C)
No.28198 of 2011 for depositing the amount. Going by the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in the afore judgment, the appellants
could not reap the benefits on account of the pendency of W.P(C)
No.28198 of 2011. In such circumstances, we find no reason to
interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, this appeal would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
ln
W.A.No.885 of 2018 2025:KER:63666
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER RULE 15(3)
TO THE 1ST APPELLANT DATED 02.06.2012.
ANNEXURE R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER RULE 13(1) DATED
16.02.2015.
ANNEXURER4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER RULE 15(3) DATED
16.02.2015.
ANNEXURE R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER
DATED 21.02.2015.
ANNEXURE R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR.
