IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27355 of 2009(L)
1. P.M.MOHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KODUNGALLOOR.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAVILANGU
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.27355/09 & 29081/09
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In these writ petitions the challenge is against the proceedings
under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the properties
covered by Section 4(1) notification for the purpose of Tsunami
rehabilitation project.
2. The contention raised by the counsel in these writ petitions
are two fold. One is that notice under Section 9(3) have not been
served and other is that 80% compensation as required under
Section 17(3A) of the Act have not been tendered and that attempt
was made to dispossess the petitioners by taking over the
possession of the land without either paying the amount or passing
award as required under the Land acquisition Act.
3. In so far as the contention that notice under Section 9(3) of
the Act has not been served on the petitioners is concerned,
counter affidavit filed by the respondents show that, notices were
published and according to the respondents notices have also been
served. In so far as the alleged non payment of 80% compensation is
WPC.Nos. 27355/09& another.
:2 :
concerned, according to the respondents, notices were sent in the
addresses of the petitioners as available in the mutation register
and that these notices were returned by the postal authorities with
the endorsement that ‘addressee not known’.
4. However, counsel for the petitioners disputed these
submissions. According to him, notices under Section 9(3)of the Act
have not been served as prescribed in the Act. In so far as payment
of 80% compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the
petitioners submit that the petitioners’ present addresses are as
indicated in the cause title of these writ petitions. According to him,
the addresses as above are well within the knowledge of the
respondents and that in spite of it, notices were not properly
addressed and sent. It is therefore contended that there is non
compliance with the statutory provision.
5. The fact that the acquisition for Rehabilitation of Tsunami
Victims is a public purpose has already upheld by this court I
several cases including in the writ petition filed by the petitioners
herein. Since, according to the petitioners the lands have not been
taken possession of, if the payment as per Section 17(3A) is
WPC.Nos. 27355/09& another.
:3 :
tendered even at this stage, such payment will cure the defects of
non-payment alleged. In so far as the alleged violation on the part
of the respondents in serving notice under section 9(3) of the Act is
concerned, prima facie, the documents produced by the
respondents leads me to think that there is compliance with the
statutory provisions in this regard.
Irrespective of the above, in order to ensure that the
petitioners are not prejudiced in any manner, I issue the following
directions.
I. That the respective Land Acquisition Officers shall issue
notice to the petitioners in their address as shown in these writ
petitions and on the petitioners presenting themselves for receiving
the compensation, compensation as admissible to them under
Section 17(3A) shall be disbursed to them.
ii. It is also directed that the petitioners will be given notice in
the address as shown in the cause title to these writ petitions, giving
them opportunity to participate in the award enquiry and on that
basis, the Land Acquisition Officer concerned shall pass awards,
which shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
WPC.Nos. 27355/09& another.
:4 :
within 2 weeks of completion of the enquiry.
Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/