IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11640 of 2008(I)
1. THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O.LATE OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A)GENERAL,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 11640 of 2008
----------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of June , 2008
JUDGMENT
The issue, which arises for decision in this writ petition, is
whether the question of determination of the correct compensation
payable for the properties which were acquired in this case is liable to
be referred to the competent civil court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The stand taken by the Government in the counter
affidavit is that reference cannot be made since the application for
reference was made by the writ petitioner long after the expiry of the
statutory period of six weeks from service of award notice under
Section 12 (2) of the Act. But it is seen from the pleadings that
the original award was passed for a total amount of Rs.3,63,418/- in
favour of Sri.Ouseph Joseph, father of the petitioner. Ouspeh Joseph
was already dead and gone three years ago. The petitioner on
receiving the award notice sent to late Ouspen Joseph by the awarding
officer on 26.5.2006 would submit objection before the awarding
officer informing that his father is no more. In the meanwhile, it
appears that portions of the structure, which was subject matter of the
WPC No.11640/2008 2
award and in respect of which compensation had been determined
under the award, was removed necessitating passage of a modified
award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Modified award was accordingly
passed in favour of the present petitioner for a much lesser amounts
than the amount originally awarded. Exts.P2 and P3 applications for
reference were filed upon receiving notice regarding the above
mentioned modified order.
2. It is not disputed before me that Exts.P2 and P3 were
submitted by the petitioner within 42 days of his being given notice of
the modified award. This being the position, I am of the view that
regard should be had to the legislative intendment, which underlies
Section 18 of the Act, and the petitioner should be given an
opportunity to have the question of the correct compensation payable
for the properties, which was actually acquired, to be decided by a
competent civil court. According to the counter affidavit, Exts.P2 and
P3 have been rejected on the ground of limitation. According to me, in
spite of the rejection of Exts.P2 and P3, the Land Acquisition Officer
should reconsider the issue and make a reference of the question
under Section 18 of the Act to the concerned court.
3. Accordingly, this writ petition will stand allowed issuing the
following orders;
WPC No.11640/2008 3
i). The order passed by he Land Acquisition Officer rejecting
Exts.P2 and P3 is quashed.
ii). The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to reconsider
Exts.P2 and P3 and take decision favourably to the petitioner and to
refer the question of determining the correct compensation payable
for the properties actually acquired to the Subordinate Judge’s court,
Pala at the earliest. At any rate, fresh orders in compliance with the
above direction will be passed within two months of receiving a copy of
this judgment.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
dpk