IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1376 of 2008(L)
1. T.G.RADHAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A. & N.H.),
For Petitioner :SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :24/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c).No. 1376 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been
filed by the petitioner, whose properties have been acquired for the
widening of the Main Central Road, seeking a direction that the
question of determination of the correct compensation for his acquired
properties be referred to the competent civil court under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act. As directed by this court, the 4th respondent
has filed a statement wherein it is contended that the petitioner’s request
cannot be considered since he had not made any application for
reference.
2. Heard both sides and it was submitted by the learned
Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji that no material has been placed
by the petitioner to show that the original compensation had been
received by the petitioner under protest and that he filed written
application for reference under Section 18 as required by law. In view
of the above submission, I directed the land acquisition officer to
W.P.C.No.1376/08 2
produce the counter foil of the cheque by which the original
compensation was paid to the petitioner and also to make available the
Register if any maintained in the land acquisition office regarding the
reference applications received. Accordingly, the book containing
counter foils of various cheques issued towards land acquisition
compensation has been made available. Page 45 of the book will show
that the petitioner’s power of attorney has received the compensation
determined under protest. The LAR case register maintained by the 4th
respondent land acquisition officer pertaining to the relevant period is
also made available for my perusal. Going by that Register, during the
period from 19-11-2005 till 20-12-2007, the land acquisition officer
has received only three applications for reference under Section 18. In
fact, he has received only two reference, but in the third case reference
had to be made pursuant to the directions of this court. Admittedly, the
land acquisition officer in question was the land acquisition officer in
respect of the acquisition for the M.C. road widening. In all
probability, there were a large number of cases and I have every reason
to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
W.P.C.No.1376/08 3
this land acquisition case register is not very seriously maintained in
the office since it is a matter of common knowledge that most of the
awardees apply for reference under Section 18 when dis-satisfied with
the compensation determined by the land acquisition officer. However,
I am unable to grant relief to the petitioner on that reason alone. It is
obligatory that the petitioner should have filed a written application
seeking reference of the question of determination of the correct
compensation to a competent civil court within the statutory period of
six weeks after receiving notice under Section 12(2).
3. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to the judgment of the Andra Pradesh High Court in
P.M.Association v. Collector ( AIR 1964 A.P. 264) and to the
decision of the Madras High Court in Krishnammal v. Collector
( AIR 1927 Mad. 282) and also to the Division Bench judgment of this
court in State of Kerala v. C.R. Viran ( 1984 KLT 837). The
judgment of the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. C.R. Viran only
lays down that the application wherein a request is made for referring
the question to the competent civil court should be construed liberally
W.P.C.No.1376/08 4
taking into account the circumstance attending on the case. Of course,
in P.M.Association’s case (P.M.Association v. Collector ( AIR 1964
A.P. 264) and in Krishnammal’s case ( Krishnammal v. Collector
( AIR 1927 Mad. 282) there were no formal application for reference
under Section 18. But in those cases the claimants while making
endorsement on the cheque had expressed their desire to have the issue
decided by the competent civil court. As already indicated, there is
nothing on the counter foil of the cheque to indicate that while lodging
his protest, the petitioner had expressed his desire to have the issue
decided by the civil court. Absolutely, no material has been placed on
record by the petitioner to show that the petitioner did make a written
application for reference. The petitioner who has produced copies of
the earlier applications filed by him in the land acquisition proceedings
including his objection to the notice inviting claims explains that he did
not retain a copy of the reference application. I find it difficult to
accept this explanation . The necessity of application in writing seeking
a reference to the competent civil court cannot be in doubt. The
position has been reiterated by various judicial pronouncements
W.P.C.No.1376/08 5
including the one by the Division Bench of this court in Kamalakshy
v. District Collector 1998(2) KLT 898).
Under the above circumstances I am unable to grant the relief
sought for. However it is made clear that this judgment will not stand
in the way of the petitioner making application under Section 28A on
the basis of relevant court judgment seeking re-determination of the
compensation payable for his acquired property. I am sure that since
the purpose of the acquisition is widening of the M.C. Road, there will
be court judgments pertaining to other cases covered by the very same
notification under Section 4(1).
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
W.P.C.No.1376/08 6