IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17678 of 2007(D)
1. SUKUMARAN K.K.,
... Petitioner
2. GOKULDAS K.K., S/O.LATE PRAVEENA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent :ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c).No.17678 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Prima facie I notice an element of genuineness in the grievance
voiced by the petitioners. The first petitioner is the son and the legal
heir of Smt.K.K.Meenakshy Amma and the second petitioner is the son
and legal heir of one Praveena who was the daughter of
Smt.Meenakshy Amma. 0.3157 hectare of property in Survey No.
209/6 of Ramanthali Village belonging to Smt.Meenakshy Amma was
acquired for the purposes of naval academy and Ext.P1 award notice
was issued to Smt.Meenakshy Amma. Smt.Meenakshy Amma did not
seek a reference under Section 18. But after Smt.Meenakshy Amma
died, Smt.K.K.Praveena, Meenakshy Amma’s daughter, filed an
application under Section 28A for re-determination of the correct
compensation for the acquired properties on the basis of court
judgment in L.A.A.No.186/1987 of the Sub Court, Payyannur as
Ext.P2. Ext.P2 application was rejected by the land acquisition officer
by Ext.P5 order on the reason that the claim of Smt.Praveena in Et.P2
WPC.No.17678/07 2
that her properties were acquired for the naval academy is not
supported by records maintained in the land acquisition office. It
appears that Ext.P5 order was not communicated to Smt.Praveena who
passed away in the meanwhile. Upon Smt.Praveena’s demise her legal
heirs Smt.K.K.Reena, K.K.Gokuldas, K.K.Pradeep Kumar etc. filed an
application seeking their impleadment in Ext.P2 proceedings. In the
meanwhile one K.K.Sukumaran, son of Smt.Meenakshy Amma,
submitted Ext.P4- a fresh application which purports to be under
Section 28A.
2. The following are the prayers in the writ petition;
i) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondent 2 and 3
to dispose of Exts.P2 and P4 applications submitted by the petitioners
within a time frame.
ii) Quash Ext.P5.
3. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit
resisting the prayers and refuting the averments in the writ petition.
The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit reiterating their contentions.
4. Heard both sides. Learned Government Pleader submited
WPC.No.17678/07 3
that Ext.P4 application has not been received by the land acquisition
officer and that at any rate Ext.P4 cannot be construed as a valid
application under Section 28A. Since no court judgment is seen relied
on and no court judgment is produced also, I have no difficulty in
accepting the submission. As regards Ext.P5, the learned Government
Pleader submits that though it may be true that Ext.P5 was not
communicated to Smt.K.K.Praveena, Ext.P5 was actually
communicated to the advocate through whom Smt.Praveena had
submitted Ext.P2. I find no material produced on the basis on which it
can be held that the present petitioners are having information
regarding Ext.P5 earlier. Apparently Ext.P2 application under Section
28 A was liable to be entertained and disposed of by the land
acquisition officer on its merits. Ext.P2 is rejected on the ground that
the claim of Smt.Praveena in Ext.P2 that her property was acquired is
not supported by records. I have no difficulty in accepting the case of
the petitioners that in paragraph 1 of Ext.P2 was referring to her
mother’s property which was the subject matter of Ext.P1 award notice.
Thus Ext.P2 could have been considered by the land acquisition officer
WPC.No.17678/07 4
as an application submitted by Smt.Praveena as legal heir of her mother
Meenakshy Amma who had passed away after receiving the award
notice. Since that is the only reason on which Ext.P2 has been rejected,
I am of the view that Ext.P2 should be considered on its merits treating
it as an application submitted by Smt.Praveena in her capacity as legal
heir of her mother Meenakshy Amma.
3. Therefore, I quash Ext.P5 and direct the land acquisition
officer to reconsider Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioners and also to all
the legal heirs of deceased Meenakshy Amma whose names and
addresses are given in Ext.P4 produced along with the writ petition. It
is made clear that Ext.P2 need be treated by the land acquisition officer
as a valid application only if it is seen that the court judgment produced
along with Ext.P2 pertains to a case relating to acquisition under the
very same Section 4(1) notification and Ext.P2 has been filed within
the statutory period of that court judgment. In other words, only if it is
found that the court judgment is relevant and that the application has
been filed within the statutory period , Ext.P2 need be considered on
merits.
WPC.No.17678/07 5
Orders and directions in compliance with the above directions
will be passed by the land acquisition officer at the earliest and at any
rate within four months of receiving copy of this judgment. I find that
the learned Government Pleader is justified in making submission that
the Government should not be made to lose on account of the delay
which has been caused in the matter and that the petitioners and the
other legal heirs of Smt.Meenakshy Amma were not very deligent in
prosecuting the matter and therefore the Government should be
exonerated from the obligation of paying statutory interest at the rates
mentioned in Section 34 on the redetermiend compensation if it is
ultimately found that Ext.P2 is a valid application. It is therefore made
clear that even if Ext.P2 is found to be a valid application, the awardees
pursuant to Ext.P2 will not be entitled for statutory interest under
Section 34 of the Act on the award amount for the period from
31-03-2001 till the date of filing of the writ petition -06/06/2007.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
WPC.No.17678/07 6