IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34687 of 2009(E)
1. T.J.JOSEPH, THERUVIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. LUCY THOMAS, KOTTARATHIL,
Vs
1. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
... Respondent
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
3. SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
7. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.ROY CHACKO
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :08/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009-E & 12372/2010-V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 there are two petitioners and
in W.P.(C).No.12372/2010 also the petitioners are two in
number.
2. The respondents initiated proceedings under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring various items of
properties including that of the petitioners for the
Punalur-Muvattupuzha Highway Project. The notification
under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act is dated
01/12/2004 and the declaration under Section 6 is dated
03/02/2006.
3. The project is one financed by the World Bank and
implemented by the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP).
The land owners were offered replacement value if they are
viable for negotiated price.
4. The first petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009
along with another approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).
No.19891/2006 wherein this Court by Ext.P1 Judgment
directed the competent authority to take a decision in the
matter. In fact, the decision had to be taken in the light
of the claim for the replacement value. Thereafter,
discussions took place at the District level and Ext.P2 is
W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010
-:2:-
the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the District
Level Purchase Committee Chaired by the District Collector.
The table therein contains the categorisation of lands, and
the land value fixed as on 20/07/2007.
5. The said minutes had to be approved by the State
Level Empowered Committee. Since further delay occurred,
the said petitioners filed W.P.(C).No.36642/2007 which was
disposed of by Ext.P3 Judgment wherein this Court directed
respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein to place the matter before
the Empowered Committee and to take a decision as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said
Judgment. Thereafter, the petitioners were waiting for the
grant of reliefs. In between, the Land Acquisition Officer
also passed awards and in the light of the expectation that
the Empowered Committee will be fixing proper compensation
as replacement value, the petitioners did not, at that
point of time, filed applications for reference. It is
averred in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 that the first petitioner
received land acquisition award amounts without protest.
Still thereafter they waited for another one year. No
action was taken and reference application submitted by the
second petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 was rejected as
submitted beyond the period provided.
W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010
-:3:-
6. Finally, the first petitioner in W.P.(C).
No.34687/2009 got information with regard to the
replacement value only by Ext.P6 communication dated
08/09/2009. He was directed to receive the balance amount
of compensation. Reference is made to G.O.(Rt)
No.1253/08/PWD dated 04/08/2008 therein.
7. When the details of the fixation of amounts were
sought, Ext.P9 was communicated with copy of the micro-plan
of 89 title holders of Lalam Village approved by Empowered
Committee and copy of the category-wise list of each
property.
8. The petitioners thereafter filed various
representations before the Chief Secretary to Government
who is the Chairman of the Empowered Committee pointing out
that the replacement value is fixed two years back and,
therefore, the value now offered is not in tune with the
current market value of the property. Accordingly, it is
requested that a refixation taking into account the promise
made may be done. Exts.P14 and 15 are the said
representations in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 and Ext.P8 is the
representation submitted by the petitioners in W.P.(C).
No.12372/2010.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for
W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010
-:4:-
the petitioners submitted that the scheme framed by the
respondents really obliges them to consider various aspects
provided therein. Copy of the Scheme has been provided as
Ext.P11 in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 . My attention was
invited to paragraphs 2.3 and 2.6 of the said scheme.
Relying upon paragraph 2.3 it is contended that the
replacement value has to be fixed by considering it as
equivalent to the amount for purchase of property.
Therefore, the amount that is required to purchase such
properties will have to be fixed as the replacement value.
Going by paragraph 2.6 it is stated that even before the
possession is taken, the compensation and other benefits
will be disbursed. Paragraph 5.2 also gives details of the
manner in which compensation has to be fixed. It is
therefore submitted that the petitioners have entered into
negotiations on the legitimate expectation that they will
be given the maximum benefit, so that they will be able to
get a suitable price which will be equivalent to the price
for purchase of the equivalent extent of property,
prevalent in the locality concerned.
10. It is submitted that the delay in the matter has
really put the petitioners in handicap since they did not
file reference applications also in time expecting payment
of proper compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer has
W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010
-:5:-
filed a statement. There is no counter affidavit filed by
the Government. The statement filed by the seventh
respondent in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 does not throw any
light as to how the compensation amount has been arrived at
as per the package. The counter affidavit of the sixth
respondent also does not give the principle and the basis
under which the amount has been fixed by the Empowered
Committee. It is also not evident whether the Empowered
Committee has taken into consideration all the aspects
including the delay caused in fixing the amount and
offering payment.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that Ext.P12 is a copy of the Sale Deed (produced in W.P.
(C).No.34687/2009) which reflects the land value as on
30/12/2003. It is submitted that the amount by way of
consideration paid is more than the land value now fixed.
All these are matters for the Empowered Committee to
consider.
12. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first
respondent to consider the representations Exts.P14 and P15
in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 and Ext.P8 in W.P.(C).
No.12372/2010 on its merits after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners will also
be entitled to produce whatever materials relied on, at the
W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010
-:6:-
time of hearing. Appropriate orders will be passed within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Judgment.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms
W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010
-:7:-
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009-E & 12372/2010-V
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010
O R D E R
It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that
the petitioners in both the writ petitions excluding the
second petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 have received
the replacement value.
Post after one month for hearing.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms