IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23726 of 2008(Y)
1. OMANA AMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c).No. 23726 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
On this writ petition coming up for admission, notice was taken
by the Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents and I have
heard the submissions of Sri.V.Bhaskaran Pillai, learned counsel for
the petitioner and also those of Sri.Benny Varghese, learned
Government Pleader. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 judgment of the
reference court in a reference under section 28A(3) and also Ext.P6
order passed by the court on interlocutory application filed by the
petitioner’s husband, the original claimant for setting aside Ext.P2
judgment. A reading of Ext.P2 will show that the learned Subordinate
Judge became obliged to pass Ext.P2 since the original claimant
Sri.Thankappan Pillai who is the husband of the present petitioner had
not adduced any evidence. Ext.P6 reveals that the interlocutory
application filed by Thankappan Pillai was found to be not
maintainable in law in view of the principles laid down in the judgment
of the supreme court in Bai Shakriben (dead)by Natwar Melsingh
WPC.No.23726/08 2
and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another ( AIR
1996 Supreme Court 3323) and a decision of this court.
2. Sri.V.Bhaskaran Pillai has addressed me extensively on the
various grounds raised in the writ petition. Counsel submitted that the
petitioner’s husband is no more and is survived by the petitioner and
their only daughter. The application filed by the petitioner’s husband
Sri.Thankappan Pillai under section 28A had been favourably
considered by the land acquisition officer and compensation had been
re-determined on the basis of the judgment relied on in the application.
The only mistake which was committed by the land acquisition officer
was that he did not award solatium or interest at statutory rates as
envisaged by section 34.
3. The learned Government Pleader to a query would submit
that the legal position is now settled that awardees under section 28A
are also eligible for statutory benefits like interest and solatium. He
however would support Ext.P2 and P6 on the reasons contained
therein.
4. It appears to me that the petitioner belongs to the lowest
WPC.No.23726/08 3
strata of the society and section 28A itself has been enacted by the
legislature in the interest of illiterate and inarticulate persons like the
petitioner. Since it is trite that the awardee under section 28A is eligible
also for statutory benefits like interest and solatium, it is obvious that
the land acquisition officer had erred in not awarding interest and
solatium. It appears to me that the land acquisition officer was carried
away by some executive circular which had been given to him for
guidance by the Government.
Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that a further
opportunity should be given to the petitioner for redressal of her
grievance. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the
reference court to entertain the interlocutory application to be filed by
the petitioner and her daughter seeking review of Ext.P2 judgment on
the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Khazan Singh v.
Union of India ( 2002(1) KLT 644(SC) provided such a petition is
filed by them within one month from today. If the reference court
receives such application, then the application will be entertained and
favourably considered notwithstanding Exts.P2 and P6 and appropriate
WPC.No.23726/08 4
orders will be passed on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme
Court. Orders as directed above shall be passed at any rate by the
reference court within six weeks of the petitioner and daughter filing
the application.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
WPC.No.23726/08 5