IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8757 of 2008(P)
1. ANTONY LOPEZ, KADAVATH HOUSE
... Petitioner
2. M.M.JOY, S/O.MATHEW
3. HASSAINAR, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE
4. MARIAMMA MATHAI, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE
5. M.J.ABDUL RAHMAN, MUTTEL HOUSE
6. RUKKIYA, W/O.SALIM
7. MARRY AUGASTIAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
3. SPECIAL THASILDAR,
4. MANAGING DIRECTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SATHISAN
For Respondent :SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :30/10/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J.
------------------------
W.P.(C)No.8757 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the owners of land on the side of HUDCO
pipeline. They surrendered their lands for implementation of
HUDCO Water Augmentation Project of the Kerala Water
Authority(KWA). The package proposal Ext.P1, as modified by
Exts.P2 and P3, were drawn by the respondents for smooth
acquisition of land through negotiation and surrender. The
petitioners surrendered their lands agreeing to Exts.P1 to P3
package proposal. According to the petitioners, the respondents
are liable to extend rehabilitation benefits to them since they
have executed Ext.P4 agreement. Their grievance is that by
issuing Ext.P7, the Government has incorporated following
additional conditions.
“a). The beneficiaries shall execute an
agreement that they forget their claim for
litigation for additional compensation.
b). The balance unusable land, if any,
WPC.No.8757/2008 2
left over after acquisition will be surrendered
free of cost to the Kerala Water Authority.
c). The beneficiaries will not be eligible
for any other concession/benefits in respect
of (b).”
2. The petitioners are aggrieved mainly by clause (b) of
Ext.P7. They place strong reliance on the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this court (Ext.P10). Under Ext.P10,
this court considered the legality of the three clauses in Ext.P7.
This court in Ext.P10 held that the respondents are not entitled
to insist that for getting rehabilitation benefits, the petitioner
should surrender left over lands after acquisition and that too
free of cost. This court further held that the petitioner in Ext.P10
is entitled to get monetary value of 2= cents of land which was
actually acquired from his possession. Following the reasons in
Ext.P10, I also hold that the respondents are not entitled to insist
that condition No.(b) in clause “m” of Ext.P7 should be obeyed
by the petitioners. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that it will be sufficient if the petitioners are given
WPC.No.8757/2008 3
opportunity to have the question of the correct compensation
payable for their acquired properties determined by the
competent Sub Court under Section 18. The learned counsel
submits that the petitioners did not apply under Section 18 in
view of Exts.P1 to P4. The learned Standing Counsel for the
Water Authority Sri.Babu Varghese submitted that he is not in a
position to agree that the petitioners can be allowed the facility
of having reference under Section 18. However, I feel that on
the facts and circumstances which attend on this case, there is
justification for facilitating a reference under Section 18 even at
this distance of time. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition
issuing the following directions ;
i). If the petitioners file applications for
reference under Section 18 before the third
respondent within three weeks of their
receiving a copy of this judgment, the third
respondent will entertain those applications as
though they are filed on time and make
references to the competent sub court the
question of determining the correct
WPC.No.8757/2008 4
compensation which was payable to them for
their acquired properties notwithstanding the
terms of Exts.P1 to Ext.P4.
It is made clear that since reference will
be facilitated, the petitioners will not be
eligible for the package. It is also made
clear that Ext.P7 has not been interfered with
in the case of the petitioners notwithstanding
my approval regarding the reasoning adopted
in Ext.P10 against Ext.P7.
(PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE)
dpk