IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 4128 of 2000(N)
1. K.P.NARAYANAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.VALSALAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :19/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.No.4128 of 2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 19th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he filed
Ext.P1 application for reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act within the statutory period, the respondent-land
acquisition officer rejected the application passing Ext.P2 order and
the main prayer in the Original Petition is that Ext.P2 order be
quashed. There is also a prayer to direct the respondent to refer
Ext.P1 to the competent civil court. The O.P. was allowed on
13.12.2000 by a learned Single Judge of this court taking the view
that there was no case of the respondent that the petitioner was
present when the award was made or that the petitioner had received
notice under Section 12(2) and has failed to make the application
within the statutory period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
notice. Later producing Annexure I, a review of the judgment was
sought for and I allowed the Review Petition. I allowed the R.P.
mainly on noticing a document which has been produced along with
the R.P. as Annexure I which prima facie indicated that the petitioner
had been served with notice under Section 12(2).
2. I have heard Mr.C.Vathsalan, learned counsel for the
O.P.No.4128/00 – 2 –
petitioner and Mr.Shyson P.Manguzha, learned Government Pleader.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with reference
to Annexure I which is a copy of notice under Section 12(2) allegedly
served on the petitioner that Annexure I cannot be construed as an
award notice in respect of whole of the acquired property of the
petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the properties acquired
from the petitioner were comprised in R.S.Nos.71/10 and 75/7.
Annexure I does not mention anything about the acquired properties
in R.S.No.75/7. Counsel would further argued that there are apparent
corrections on the date put by the notice server on Annexure I. The
original date of 20.4.1999 was subsequently corrected as 20.1.1999.
If the date of service is taken as 20.4.1999, Ext.P1 will be within the
period of limitation. Learned counsel submitted that second signature
seen on Annexure I is not the signature of the notice server but the
signature of the Village Officer who had nothing to do with the actual
service of notice.
4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that neither the
statute nor the relevant rule, i.e., Rule 13 of the Land Acquisition
(Kerala) Rules insists that the award notice under Section 12(2) shall
contain details of all the survey numbers relating to the acquired
O.P.No.4128/00 – 3 –
property. What the law requires is only that the party should be given
notice regarding the compensation determined so that if he so wants,
he can file objection and seek a reference. The Government Pleader
further submitted that the allegation that the village man who was
deputed to surrender Annexure I on the petitioner has made
corrections in the date are wrong. The village man does not stand to
gain anything by making such corrections. The village man is
expected to submit his report before the Village Officer and the
Village Officer’s counter signature will reveal that the report was
submitted by the village man on 21.1.1999.
5. I have considered the rival submissions. It will be
immediately stated that I am not impressed by the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice server, the village
man has made corrections on Annexure I resulting in the reference
application Ext.P1 becoming liable to be rejected on the ground of
limitation. The counter signature put by the Village Officer will show
that the report of service was submitted before the Village Officer
prior to 21.1.1999 which means that service was made prior to
21.1.1999. Coming to the grievance that Annexure I does not
mention the survey numbers of the acquired property, the learned
O.P.No.4128/00 – 4 –
counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded before me that out of the
total extent of 0.0060 hectares, the lion’s share, i.e.,0.0058 hectares
was in Survey No.71/10 and only a very small fraction extending
0.0002 hectares was comprised in the other survey number. Section
12(2) only mandates that the Collector shall give immediate notice of
his award to the awardees and the persons interested. The relevant
rule is rule 13 of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules and the same
reads as follows:
“13. Notice of award and payment – (1) Immediately, after the
award is made, the Land Acquisition Officer shall issue a notice of
award in Form No.10(b). The said notice shall be served on the
awardees as well as other persons interested in the land in the
manner prescribed in Section 45.
(2) In case the awardees or their authorised agents fail to appear and
accept the award or fail to apply for a reference to Court under
Section 18, the amount due shall be paid into the treasury as
Revenue Deposit payable to the persons to whom it is respectively
due and vouched for in Form E. A notice intimating the deposit of the
amount into the Treasury shall also be served on all the awardees
and interested persons in Form No.11.
O.P.No.4128/00 – 5 –
(3) As soon as the payment or deposit of the award is completed, a
subsidiary statement in Form ‘B’ showing the acceptance of award
shall be sent to the Accountant General in duplicate.
(4) Where an award has been made by a Court under Section 25, a
second award statement shall be prepared in Form ‘C’ by the Land
Acquisition Officer and a copy thereof sent to the Accountant General
in duplicate.
(5) The Accountant General will forward one copy each of the
completed A, B and C statements to the Board of Revenue which will
be filed there and retained permanently.”
Thus what the rule insists is that the Land Acquisition Officer shall
give award notice in Form No.10(b) and that the notice shall be
served on the awardees as well as the persons interested in the
manner prescribed in Section 45. Service of notice through process
servers deputed in that regard is one of the manners mentioned in
Section 45. Form No.10(b) consists of four columns and the first
column is for mentioning survey number and sub division number. In
Annexure I also the first column has been filled up but the survey
number mentioned is only 71/10 and survey No.75/7 is not
mentioned at all. Thus, I am in agreement with the counsel for the
O.P.No.4128/00 – 6 –
petitioner when he submits that Annexure I is defective to the extent
of not mentioning both the survey numbers. But at the same time, I
am of the view that this defect will not vitiate Annexure I in as much
as the petitioner cannot have a legitimate grievance that he has not
been served with award award notice. The legislative objective
underlying Section 12(2) and the Rule 13 is only that the awardee
should be informed readily about the compensation determined so
that if he is having any objections, he can seek a reference to the
court for determination of the correct compensation which according
to him is entitled. It was not disputed before me by the learned
counsel that the compensation amount of Rs.1,56,193/- mentioned in
Annexure I is the total amount that was awarded for the properties in
both the survey numbers. That being the position, I am inclined to
accept the Government’s stand that the petitioner had notice of the
award and having not sought for a reference within the statutory
period of six weeks, the Land Acquisition Officer was correct in
rejecting Ext.P1 and passing Ext.P2.
6. I am informed that the case pertains to acquisition of land for
the purpose of doubling of railway lines. I am sure that other cases
covered by the very same Section 4(1) notification would have
O.P.No.4128/00 – 7 –
reached the reference court. Neither Ext.P2 nor this judgment
confirming Ext.P2 will stand in the way of the petitioner applying for
redetermination under Section 28A on the basis of a relevant court
judgment. Subjection to the above observation, the Original Petition
is dismissed.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE