Kerala High Court
Beena Sarasan vs State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
WP(C) No.22050/2024
2025:KER:15235
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22050 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BEENA SARASAN, AGED 72 YEARS
D/O BALAGANGADHARAN, C-1, TENNIS CLUB ENCLAVE,
KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
BY ADV BEENA SARASAN(Party-In-Person)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC OFFICER, OPP. MUSEUM,
THIRUVANANTHAPAURAM, PIN - 695001
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
4 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
5 KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
BY ADV P.U.SHAILAJAN, SC,KSIDC
SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN, SR.GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.12.2024, THE COURT ON 24.02.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.22050/2024
2025:KER:15235
:2:
"C.R."
J U D G M E N T
The applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 ('the LA Act' for short) to an award passed under Section
11(2) of the said Act falls for consideration in this writ petition.
2. The property of the petitioner, having an extent of
3.4560 Hectares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.187/1 of Veiloor
Village, was acquired under the LA Act for establishing a Life
Science Park for the 5th respondent, an instrumentality of the State.
The compensation was fixed after negotiation, and the award in
LAC No. 36/2010 was passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act for
a sum of Rs.15,33,49,804/-. The petitioner received the
compensation amount on 7/4/2011. Another 38 cents of land
belonging to the petitioner comprised in the same notification was
also acquired, and compensation was awarded to her in LAC
No.35/2010. At the instance of the petitioner, reference for
enhanced compensation for the said 38 cents of land was made to
the Authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') and the Authority
in LAR No.21/2017 passed Ext. P15 award allowing enhanced
compensation. The petitioner preferred Ext. P16 application under
2025:KER:15235
Section 28A of the LA Act before the 4 th respondent for
redetermination of the compensation awarded in LAC No.36/2010
based on Ext. P15 award passed in LAR No.21/2017. The 4 th
respondent rejected the claim for enhanced compensation as per
Ext.P17 order. The writ petition has been filed challenging the said
order.
3. According to the petitioner, she accepted the award in
LAC No.36/2010 passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on the
specific condition that she is eligible for enhanced compensation, if
any, paid to any other similar land covered by the same notification
and hence she is entitled to get enhanced compensation under
Section 28A of the LA Act based on Ext. P15 award passed by the
Authority. It is alleged that in Ext.P3 affidavit filed by the petitioner
before the 4th respondent, she expressed her willingness for a
settlement on an agreed price reserving her right to claim
enhanced compensation in the event of any other land covered by
the same notification is paid a higher rate of compensation and it
was without prejudice to her right for enhanced compensation
stated in Ext.P3 that she received the compensation awarded in
LAC No.36/2010.
4. The 4th and 5th respondents filed separate counter
affidavits refuting the allegations in the writ petition. In the
statement filed by the 4 th respondent, it is contended that the
2025:KER:15235
compensation was fixed for the acquired land of the petitioner in
LAC No.36/2010 on the basis of negotiation and the petitioner
executed agreement in Form 10(a) prescribed under the Land
Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 which contains a specific condition
that the owner and interested party shall not claim any amount in
addition to the amount agreed upon as compensation and the
petitioner accepted it without any protest. It is further contended
that in the award, there is no condition that the petitioner is
eligible for enhanced compensation for any reason and hence, she
cannot make a claim for enhanced compensation invoking Section
28A of the LA Act. It is also contended that Ext.P3 affidavit has no
legal sanctity since the same was submitted much before the date
of execution of the 10(a) agreement. In the counter affidavit filed
by the 5th respondent, it is contended that the award in LAC
No.36/2010 was passed by the 4 th respondent under Section 11(2)
of the LA Act on the basis of Ext.R5(b) agreement executed by the
petitioner and once an award is passed under Section 11(2) of the
LA Act on the basis of the agreement in Form 10(a) and accepted
by the landowner, it is final and cannot be reopened.
5. The petitioner filed reply affidavits opposing the
contentions in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 4 and 5
and reiterating the averments in the writ petition.
6. I have heard the petitioner, Smt. Beena Sarasan, who
2025:KER:15235
appeared in person, Sri. Y. Jafar Khan, the learned Senior
Government Pleader, and Sri. P.U. Shailajan, the learned standing
counsel for the 5th respondent.
7. The 4th respondent passed the award in LAC
No.36/2010 under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on 5/3/2011. The
petitioner received the compensation amount of Rs.15,33,49,804/-
on 7/4/2011. 3.7080 Hectares of land belonging to the petitioner's
sister and comprised in the same notification was acquired by the
Government, and an award under Section 11(2) of the LA Act was
passed on 3/6/2017. Ext.P10 is the said award. The petitioner
submitted Ext.P11 representation before the 4 th respondent
claiming enhanced compensation for her land acquired at the same
rate of compensation awarded in Ext.P10. The 4th respondent
rejected Ext.P11 as per Ext.P12 order. The petitioner challenged
Ext.P12 order before this court in WP(C) No.3012/2018. The
learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that since the
petitioner has already claimed enhancement of compensation
under Section 28 of the LA Act vide Ext.P11 representation and it
was rejected, the petitioner cannot again claim enhancement of
compensation invoking Section 28A of the LA Act based on Ext.P15
award. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted
that since the award was passed on negotiation under Section
11(2) of the LA Act and Ext.R5(b) settlement agreement has been
2025:KER:15235
executed, the petitioner is estopped and precluded from
maintaining an application in terms of Section 28A of the LA Act.
Refuting the said contention, the petitioner submitted that she
accepted the award under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on a specific
condition that she is eligible for enhanced compensation, if any,
paid to other similar land covered by the same notification under
Section 4(1) of the LA Act.
8. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 provides a legal
framework for acquiring land for public purposes and compensating
landowners. Section 11(1) is a compulsory award determined by
the Collector after due process, allowing for legal challenges and
redetermination. Section 11(2) is a consent award, where
compensation is settled amicably. Under Section 11(1), the
Collector determines the compensation for the acquired land based
on factors like market value, damages, and incidental costs. The
award is made after considering the objections from landowners
and conducting necessary inquiries. It forms the basis for payment
unless challenged. If a landowner is dissatisfied with the
compensation under Section 11(1) and received it under protest,
he can seek a reference to the Court under Section 18 within the
prescribed time. The Court then reassesses and may enhance the
compensation based on evidence and legal principles. Section
11(2) allows for a negotiated settlement between the landowner
2025:KER:15235
and the Government. If both parties agree on the compensation
amount, the Collector records an award based on mutual consent.
Once agreed, this compensation is final. Section 28A benefits
landowners who did not seek a reference under Section 18. If the
Court, on reference under Section 18, enhances compensation for
any land acquired under the same notification, others whose land
were acquired under the same process can apply for
redetermination of their compensation.
9. The contention of the respondents that in view of
Ext.P12 order rejecting Ext.P11 representation submitted by the
petitioner claiming enhanced compensation, Ext.P16 is not
maintainable cannot be sustained. A plain reading of Section 28A
of the LA Act makes it clear that the redetermination of
compensation has to be done by the Collector on the basis of the
compensation awarded by the Court in the reference under Section
18 of the LA Act and an application in that behalf has to be made
to the Collector within thirty days from the date of the award.
Ext.P11 representation was not made based on the compensation
awarded by the Court in the reference under Section 18 of the LA
Act. On the other hand, Ext.P11 representation was made based on
Ext.P10 award passed by the Collector under Section 11(2) of the
LA Act. Ext.P11 is only a representation requesting to grant
enhanced compensation based on Ext.P10 award; it is not an
2025:KER:15235
application for reference under Section 18 of the LA Act.
10. As stated already, the definite case of the petitioner is
that she accepted the award under Section 11(2) of the LA Act on a
specific condition that she is entitled to enhanced compensation if
any paid to any other similar land covered by the same notification
and that she received the compensation without prejudice to her
right to claim for enhanced compensation. Exts.P3 and P9 are the
crucial documents relied on by the petitioner to substantiate the
said plea. According to the petitioner, while the negotiation was in
progress, the 3rd and 4th respondents directed her to file an affidavit
in a format given by them. Accordingly, she filed Ext.P3 affidavit
dated 2/2/2011 before the 4th respondent. In paragraph 10 of the
affidavit, the petitioner has specifically stated that she reserves her
right to claim enhancement under Section 28 of the LA Act,
notwithstanding the agreement, if any enhancement is awarded in
respect of the acquisition under the same notification. Exts.P3(a),
P3(b) and P3(c) are copies of pages 151, 159 and 161 of the
records of the Special Tahsildar relating to LAC No.36/2010. A
perusal of the same would show that reference is made in
Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) to Ext.P3 affidavit filed by the petitioner. Thus,
it is evident that Ext.P3 affidavit was included in the draft of the
award. The records would further show that even after receiving
the compensation, the petitioner was issuing communications to
2025:KER:15235
the 3 rd
and 4 th
respondents regarding the correctness of the
compensation offered and received. On 27/10/2011, the petitioner
submitted Ext.P8 representation to the Principal Secretary,
Industries Department which inter alia referred to the specific
condition based on which the acquired land was surrendered. The
Additional Chief Secretary to Government, by his letter dated
28/10/2011 addressed to the 3 rd respondent (Ext.P9), confirmed
that the petitioner surrendered her land on condition that if others
who are covered by the same notification get higher compensation,
she should also get it. It is specifically stated in the said letter that
the petitioner should not lose the enhanced compensation for the
sole reason that she co-operated with the Government land
acquisition. This evidence and circumstances clearly establish that
the petitioner surrendered the land and accepted the award under
Section 11(2) of the LA Act on the condition mentioned in Ext.P3
affidavit that she is eligible for enhanced compensation if any paid
to any other similar land covered by the same notification and the
said condition was accepted by the respondent.
11. The learned Government Pleader, as well as the
learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent brought my
attention to clause No. (3) of Ext. R5(b) agreement which says that
the owner and the interested party shall not claim any amount in
addition to the amount agreed upon as compensation and shall
2025:KER:15235
accept the compensation without any protest. Relying on the said
clause it is submitted that the petitioner is precluded from invoking
Section 28A. The said clause finds a place on page No.2 of the
agreement. In answer to the above submission, the petitioner
submitted that she had signed only the last page of Ext.P13
[R5(b)], and the remaining pages were not shown to her.
According to the petitioner, Form, 10(a), forming part of Ext.P13,
which contains the condition being referred to by the 4 th
respondent (Clause 3), was not part of the documents that were
provided to her and was only subsequently added without her
knowledge. In support of the said submission, she pointed out that
page No.2 of Ext. P13 [R5(b]), which contains Clause (3) was not
signed by her or the District Collector. It is pertinent to note in this
connection that the award in the name of the petitioner and the
award in the name of the sister of the petitioner were both under
Section 11(2) of the LA Act. Ext.P23 is the true copy of Form 10(a)
executed by the sister of the petitioner. Ext.P23 agreement
contains the signature of the sister of the petitioner on all the
pages, whereas Ext.P13 contains the signature of the petitioner
only on the last page. All these facts and circumstances suggest
that the petitioner participated in the negotiation making her
position very clear that it was without prejudice to the claim for
enhanced compensation in the event of any other land involved in
2025:KER:15235
the same notification being awarded enhanced compensation.
Then, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether a
person who has received the compensation under protest pursuant
to an award passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act and has not
filed an application seeking reference under Section 18 is "a person
aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 28A. To answer the
question, it is profitable to extract Section 28A, which reads thus:
"28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on
the basis of the award of the Court
(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court
allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in
excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under
Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land
covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-
section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the
Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an
application to the Collector under Section 18, by written
application to the Collector within three months from the
date of the award of the Court require that the amount of
compensation payable to them may be re-determined on
the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the
Court:
Provided that in computing the period of three months
within which an application to the Collector shall be made
under this sub-section, the day on which the award was
pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of
the award shall be excluded.
(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application
under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving
notice to all the persons interested and giving them a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award
determining the amount of compensation payable to the
2025:KER:15235
applicants.
(3) Any person who has not accepted the award
under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court and the
provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be,
apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under
Section 18."
12. A reading of the above provision would show that a
person who is aggrieved by the award of the Collector is entitled to
invoke the provisions of Section 28A for redetermination of the
compensation on the basis of the amount of compensation
awarded by the Court on reference under Section 18 in respect of
land under the same notification notwithstanding the fact that he
did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18.
Section 28A does not make any distinction between the award
passed under Section 11(1) or 11(2). It only says the persons
interested in all the other land covered by the same notification
and who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector can invoke
the provision. Thus, if a person is aggrieved by the award of the
Collector, be it under Section 11(1) or 11(2), he is entitled to invoke
Section 28A.
13. The word "person interested" finds a place in sub-
sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 and Section 18 of the LA Act.
However, in Section 28A, besides the word "persons interested",
2025:KER:15235
the word "aggrieved" are employed. Though the word "aggrieved"
has not been defined in the LA Act, the word "person interested"
has been defined under sub-clause (b) of Section 3. As per the
definition assigned to "person interested", it includes all persons
claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the
acquisition of land under the Act, and a person shall be deemed to
be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting
the land. The words "person interested" in all other land and
"aggrieved" by the award of the Collector employed in Section 28A
are crucial. Merely being an interested person would not ipso facto
cloth the landowner for redetermination of the compensation under
Section 28A as, along with it, he should be "aggrieved" also.
14. True, normally, when a negotiated award is passed
based on Form 10(a) agreement under Section 11(2), the person in
whose favour the award is passed cannot be said to be a person
aggrieved by the award. But in a case where a person accepted the
award passed under Section 11(2) under protest or reserving his
right to claim enhanced compensation in the event enhanced
compensation is paid to any other land covered by the same
notification under reference order of the Court under Section 18, he
is definitely a person aggrieved and is entitled to invoke Section
28A. A claimant who receives compensation under protest but
makes no application under Section 18, becomes a person
2025:KER:15235
aggrieved under Section 28A of the Act and is entitled to seek
redetermination for higher compensation. Examining the meaning
of the word "person aggrieved" employed in Section 28A, the
Supreme Court in Babua Ram and Others v. State of U.P. and
Another [(1995) 2 SCC 689] held that "the person aggrieved must,
therefore, be one who has suffered a legal grievance because of a
decision pronounced by Civil Court giving higher compensation for
the acquired lands similar to his own while he is denied of such
higher compensation for his land because of operation of Section
18 read with Section 31 of the Act resulting in affectation of his
pecuniary interest in his acquired land directly and adversely by
that award of the Collector made under Section 11. As such, he
becomes an aggrieved person entitled to avail of the right and
remedy conferred upon him under Section 28A(1) to make good his
denied right to receive compensation in excess of the amount
awarded by the Collector/L.A.O". In Union of India v. Hansoli Devi
(2003 KHC 221) it was held that if a person has not filed an
application under Section 18 of the Act to make a reference, then
irrespective of the fact whether he has received the compensation
awarded by the Collector with or without protest, he would be a
person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 28A and would be
entitled to make an application when some other land owner's
application for reference is answered by the reference court. Since
2025:KER:15235
the petitioner accepted the award without prejudice to her right to
enhanced compensation, she is entitled to make an application
under Section 28A based on Ext.P15 reference answered by the
Authority. For these reasons, I hold that that the dismissal of
Ext.P16 application vide Ext.P17 order cannot be legally sustained.
Accordingly, Ext.P17 is set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to
reconsider Ext.P16 on merits and pass orders in accordance with
law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
Rp
2025:KER:15235
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22050/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF LAND AND
COMPENSATION OFFERED DATED NIL
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
24.2.2011 IN W.P. (C) NO: 9109 OF 2010
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
2.2.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3(a) A TRUE COPY OF PAGE 151 OF THE RECORDS OF
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR RELATING TO LAC
36/10 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH
RTL
Exhibit P3(b) A TRUE COPY OF PAGES 159 AND 161 OF THE
RECORDS OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR RELATING
TO LAC 36/10 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER
THROUGH RTL
Exhibit P3(c) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.2.2011 RE-
SUBMITTING AMENDED EXT. P3 AND BASIC TAX
RECEIPT DATED 17.2.2011
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF AWARD ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.3.2011
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.3.2011
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 4.4.2011
UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONER HANDED OVER
THE LAND TO THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.2.2011 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
27.01.2011 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
4TH RESPONDENT
2025:KER:15235
Exhibit P7(b) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 28.1.2012 FROM
3RD RESPONDENT TO EXT.P7
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
27.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT WITH CLEAR COPY OF THE SAME
(WITHOUT ENDORSEMENT)
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
27847/J3/2011/ID DATED 28.10.2011 ISSUED
BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA TO THE 3RD AND 5TH RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 17.4.2017
MADE IN RESPECT OF LAND OF THE
PETITIONER'S SISTER ASHA PRASAD
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.8.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
11.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SO-CALLED AGREEMENT
DATED 16.2.2011 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER
AND 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE NO. 51 OF
FILE NO. K4- 59440/07 OF 3RD RESPONDENT
RELATING TO EXHIBIT-P13.
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD BY THE LAND
ACQUISITION AUTHORITY DATED 27.7.2023 IN
LAR 21/17 LATER CORRECTED BY ORDER DATED
17.10.2023, AND CORRECTION EFFECTED ON
18.1.2024
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
19.1.2024 WITH ENCLOSURES SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 28.A OF THE
ACT
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT-P16 DATED
23.03.2024
2025:KER:15235
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW WP(C)NO.9109/2010
DATED 31.1.2011
Exhibit R5(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.2.2011
Exhibit R5(c) THE TRUE COPY OF T:HE AWARD DATED
3.6.2017 IN A.S.NO.1 /2017 PASSED BY
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
Exhibit R5(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION
REGARDING THE COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE
PETITIONER AS PER S.12(2) OF THE LA ACT
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.LA(T)1-345/2008
DATED 21.02.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS LETTER DATED
25.11.2011 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P18(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.03.2011
FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT
SEEKING PRIOR APPROVAL WITH EFFECT FROM
05.03.2011
Exhibit P18(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 08.04.2011 FROM
THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
REGARDING DELAY IN PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
Exhibit P18(d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03.09.2011 TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT REGARDING INCORRECT
CALCULATION OF LA COMPENSATION.
Exhibit P19(a) TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENTS RECEIVED UNDER RTI
ACT FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
03.11.2011 RELATING TO ACCORDING PRIOR
APPROVAL
2025:KER:15235
Exhibit P19(b) TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NOTE DATED
05.03.2011 SIGNED BY DY. COLLECTOR (LA)
ON 21.03.2011 WITH ENCLOSURE DATED
05.03.2011
Exhibit P19(c) TRUE COPIES OF PAGES 57 AND 58 OF FILE
NO.K4-59440/07 (RENUMBERED K3-59440/07)
RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT BY LETTER DATED
27.06.2024
Exhibit P20(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED UNDER RTI
ACT, FROM 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.2011
NO.K4-59440/07 TO 4TH RESPONDENT CALLING
FOR REPORT ON EXT.P9.
Exhibit P20(b) TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXT.P20(A) FROM 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 25.7.2024 RECEIVED UNDER
RTI ACT.
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.01.2011 BY
THE PETITIONER RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT
FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P22(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
KSIDC/TVM/2007/3017 DATED 22.01.2007 FROM
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P22(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NO.1551/07/LD DATED 05.12.2007 ISSUED BY
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNOR
ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF FORM 10(A) AGREEMENT DATED
07.04.2017 EXECUTED BY ASHA PRASAD, WHICH
WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI
ACT FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 19.08.2024
Exhibit P24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.
TVM/3282/2007/1424 DATED 22.07.2010
RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT FROM THE LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
Exhibit P25(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO: K4-59440/
07 DATED 10-02-2014
Exhibit P25(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT AWARD
(SUPPLEMENT) NO: AS1/2011 DATED
24.02.2014
2025:KER:15235
Exhibit P25(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
THIRD RESPONDENT NO. K4-59440/07 DATED
06.04.2014.
Exhibit P26 THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07.02.2011
IN LA(T)1-98/2011 FROM THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
