IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31575 of 2010(V)
1. C.A.SADANANDAN, AGED 70
... Petitioner
2. MARY SADANANDAN,A GED 69 YEARS,
Vs
1. LAND ACUQITION OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
4. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJU ANTONEY
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :19/11/2010
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.31575 OF 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are husband and wife. The land belonging to
them was acquired for the purpose of Cochin International Airport. An
award was passed way back on 20.5.1998 and the compensation was
also paid over to them on 18.4.1998 and 29.7.1998. The petitioners
did not complain about adequacy of the compensation and moved the
Land Acquisition Officer to refer their claim for enhanced compensation
to the court. Long thereafter, they moved the District Collector,
Ernakulam, by submitting the original of Ext.P6 application seeking
enhancement of compensation. In the alternative, they claimed
employment in the Kochi International Airport. By Ext.P7 letter dated
21.7.2010, the District Collector informed the petitioners that the
petitioners did not move the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the
dispute regarding the adequacy of the compensation to the Court,
hence, no further amount can be paid to them by way of
compensation. As regards employment assistance, the petitioners are
informed that the employment assistance was provided only to those
families from whom the land was taken over after negotiation. In this
writ petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P7 and seek payment of
enhanced compensation and also other benefits including
W.P.(C) No.31575 of 2010
2
Rehabilitation and Employment.
2. The award in respect of the land belonging to the
petitioners was passed on 20.5.1998. The compensation amount was
also paid to them simultaneously. More than 12 years have passed
thereafter. The petitioners have admittedly not objected to the
adequacy of the compensation or requested the Land Acquisition
Officer to refer the dispute regarding the adequacy of compensation to
the Court. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that at this
distance of time, the dispute regarding the adequacy of compensation
cannot be referred to the Court. Further, the petitioners have not
produced any material to show that their land was acquired subject to
the condition that they will be rehabilitated or employment
opportunity will be provided to their children. Admittedly, the
petitioners have no issues, they are aged and therefore, they cannot
claim employment.
In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the reliefs
prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Further, even after
12 years, the petitioners did not move the Cochin International Airport
and they moved the District Collector. The District Collector has no
jurisdiction or authority to pass orders affecting the rights of the
W.P.(C) No.31575 of 2010
3
Cochin International Airport. Therefore, the District Collector could
not have decided the issue in favour of the petitioners. I, therefore,
find no ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails
and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the
dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the
petitioners from invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, if
they are entitled to the said provision.
P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
nj.