IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 676 of 2008(A)
1. N.K.SURESH,S/O. KOCHU NARAYANAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
6. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS
7. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
8. STATE OF KERALA
9. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
10. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION)
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :02/07/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
R.P. NO.676/2008 IN WPC 4834/2008
R.P. 677/2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 11556 of 2008
----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008
O R D E R
The writ petitioners seeks review of my common judgment in
W.P.(C).4834/2008, 37570/2007, 161/2008, 4728/2008,
4834/2008,5380/2008, 11556/2008 & 11556/2008. Sri.P.B.Suresh
Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners have addressed me on
the grounds raised in the Review Petition. I have also heard the
submissions of Sri. Siby Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in some other writ petitions. Sri.D.Anil Kumar, the
learned Senior Government Pleader addressed me on behalf of the
respondent State Government and the public officers under the State
Government. Sri.Anand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin
Port Trust and the Assistant Solicitor General have also addressed
me.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the State
Government and the District Collector are interpreting my judgment in
such a manner as to confine the rehabilitation benefits only to those
petitioners who have opted for DLPC package and to deny such
R.P.676/2008 & others 2
benefits in all cases where awards have been passed under the Land
Acquisition Act. Sri. Suresh Kumar would submit that in almost all
these cases awards have been passed under the Land Acquisition Act
and if the interpretation of the Government to the directions issued
by this court under the judgment is to be adopted, the same will
virtually amount to depriving almost all the petitioners of the reliefs
which this court has actually conferred on the evictees.
Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar would submit that the last sentence in clause
(a) of the operative paragraph of the judgment i.e. paragraph 30
requires to be reviewed. The learned counsel also submitted that
the parenthetical clause at the end of the last sentence in clause (c)
of paragraph 30 also requires to be deleted lest the eligible parties
may be denied the full amount which this court has granted to them
by way of special rehabilitation allowance. Sri.Suresh Kumar would
lastly submit that atleast in a few cases where some of the evictees
have opted for DLPC package and have actually executed sale deed,
sale consideration has not been paid and that the Government insisting
on immediate eviction.
3. Sri.Siby Mathew would submit that in order that the evictees
from Moolampilly also gets the benefits of this judgment, it is
necessary that the special directions are incorporated regarding such
R.P.676/2008 & others 3
evictees in whose cases awards have been passed and have been
actually evicted.
4. Sri.D.Anil Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader
took exception to the submission of Sri.Siby Mathew that evictees
from Moolampilly are being deprived of the rehabilitation benefits
under the cover of this judgment. According to the learned
Government Pleader Ext.R2(b) has not been touched by this court and
evictees from Moolampilly will be rehabilitated on the basis of Ext.R2
(b). The learned Government Pleader also took strong exception to
the submissions of Sri. Suresh Kumar that sale deeds have been taken
without the vendors being paid the agreed consideration. As regards
the main grievance of the petitioners, the learned Government
Pleader placed before me the written instructions imparted by the
District Collector in the matter on 2.7.2008, wherein the Government
has expressed willingness to confer all the benefits of DLPC package
also to those persons in whose cases awards have been passed under
the Land Acquisition Act but possession has not been taken and
compensation has not been paid. The relevant paragraphs of the
District Collector’s letter addressed to the Advocate General are
extracted below for convenience.
R.P.676/2008 & others 4
i). As per common judgment DLPC package
will not be available to cases where awards under
Land Acquisition Act have already been passed.
Some of the writ petitioners in the common
judgment referred above, have filed review petition
seeking clarifications to the effect that in case of
persons where awards have already been passed
should also be extended the benefits of DLPC rates.
2. In order to take possession of land of the
remaining persons we can take stand that reliefs of
DLPC package may be given to those people in
whose cases awards have been passed under Land
Acquisition Act but possession has not been taken
and compensation not paid. But this can be done
only if the above persons withdraw their court
reference application under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act and give an undertaking that they
will not apply for court reference.
Since the matter needs to be finalised
R.P.676/2008 & others 5
urgently a maximum period of two days may be
given for them to comply with above directions and
file DLPC option and submit necessary documents. ”
5. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions made at
the bar, I am of the view that it was never the intention of this court
to deny the rehabilitation benefits to the evictees in whose cases
awards under the Land Acquisition Act have been passed. A careful
reading of the judgment will show that this court became inclined to
accept the claim of the petitioners for rehabilitation benefits to a
considerable extent on the basis of the resettlement and rehabilitation
policy declared by the Government of India in 2003 and also by the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to
in the judgment. Though option has been given to the parties under
clause (a) of paragraph 30, the same has been given only in the
context of the monetary compensation to be paid to the persons who
are being deprived of their properties whether such compensation
should be determined in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition
Act or in terms of the land value rates fixed by the DLPC. In my
R.P.676/2008 & others 6
opinion clause(c) of paragraph 30 which specifically deals with
rehabilitation benefits is clear enough to indicate that eligibility for
rehabilitation benefits will be independent of the party opting for DLPC
rates.
6. However, since it is clear that operative portion of my
judgment has given rise to some confusion in the matter of identifying
the persons who should be given the benefits of rehabilitation and also
since I find some merit in the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioners (which is practically endorsed by the learned Government
Pleader also) I am inclined to allow these review petitions and issue
the following directions/clarifications;
a). Evictees from Moolampilly will be entitled for the
rehabilitation benefits which have been extended to them by the
Government under Ext.R2(b) and such benefits will not be denied to
them on the reason that awards have been passed and that their
lands have already been taken possession of.
b). The relief given under clause (a) of paragraph 30 of my
judgment i.e. regarding exercise of option for DLPC rates is extended
R.P.676/2008 & others 7
also to those parties in whose cases awards has been passed under
the Land Acquisition Act provided compensation amount has not been
paid and possession has not been taken.
(c). Time for exercising option granted under clause (a) is
extended till 5 P.M. on 5.7.2008.
d). If any such persons covered by (b) and (c) above ( awards
already passed under the Land Acquisition Act but possession has not
been taken and compensation not paid) have already filed reference
applications under Section 18, it is open to the Land Acquisition
Officer to close such reference applications as unnecessary.
e). The parenthetical clause ( basic land value x 2 ) at the end
of the last sentence in clause (c) of the judgment is hereby deleted.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
dpk