IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 9229 of 2006(W)
1. V.KRISHNA SHENOY, LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS,
... Petitioner
2. V.V.CHANDRAMATHI BAI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.L.SHENOY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :17/08/2006
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 9229 OF 2006
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2006.
J U D G M E N T
This petition is filed to quash an award passed by the second
respondent under the Land Acquisition Act. The first petitioner
obtained title and possession over an extent of property involved in
the land acquisition proceedings and he obtained possession of the
property also, through court, after a long legal battle which stood over
a period of 34 years. The second petitioner is his wife who has also
substantial interest in the property which is the subject matter of the
acquisition notified under Section 4(1) of the Act.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not heard
before an award is passed. Since the authorities failed to issue notice
and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, first petitioner
filed a Writ Petition No. 11737/2005 before this court and as per
judgment dated 04.11.2005, the following order was passed.
“Hence, I direct that, if the writ petitioner was not so far
heard, he or his counsel, may be heard and the
5th respondent shall thereafter make a report in respect of
his property, notified under Section 4(1) of the Act to the
Commissioner of the Land Revenue, as contemplated
under Section 5A of the Act. The Commissioner of Land
Revenue, thereafter, shall dispose of the same, by taking a
decision, under Section 6 of the Act as well as Rules
thereunder. The said exercise, as stated above, shall be
contemplated within three months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment, before the
5th respondent, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition).
W.P.(C). 9229/06 2
In the above facts and circumstances, I find that the
prayer of the writ petitioner to quash Ext. P15 is without
any basis, and therefore, the same is rejected”.
3. Despite this direction, it is submitted that the first petitioner
was not heard, but award was passed in respect of the disputed
property which is covered by the notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act. Since there was a threat of dispossession, a stay was granted by
this court which restrains the respondents from dispossessing the
possession from the disputed property. In spite of the said direction,
the petitioners were allegedly dispossessed from the property.
Contempt proceedings were initiated as C.C (C) No. 519/2006 by the
petitioners. In the said proceedings, the third respondent filed a
counter affidavit as well as a memo.
4. At the time of hearing, learned Government Pleader,
however, admitted that petitioners were dispossessed and also
conceded that some illegality was committed. He tried to explain
under which circumstance this happened. It was also submitted that
every step was taken by the respondent to compensate the petitioners
for the error committed and that the authorities genuinely regret for
the mistake committed by them. Steps were also taken to settle the
matter between the parties. Ultimately, it was decided that the
petitioners will be put in possession of the property since the
possession was taken illegally.
W.P.(C). 9229/06 3
5. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the award passed
is illegal. It was passed in violation of the specific direction in
Exhibits P1 and P3 judgments of this court. Possession was also taken
of in violation of direction given by this court. In the above
circumstances, the award is liable to be set aside. Learned
Government Pleader submitted that a memo was filed dated
03.07.2006 by the District Collector, Alappuzha for protecting the
interest of the writ petitioners and that those may be recorded in the
judgment. The suggestions made in the said memo are as follows.
“1. The first petitioner has a case that he was not heard
before the Award was passed. The landowners will be
heard in the Section 5A enquiry and in the Award
enquiry.
2. The second petitioner has a case that her right of way
has not been protected. For this, it is suggested that
a 4 metre wide road will be provided through the
northern and western margin of the LA property,
touching the land of the second petitioner. This
road will be included in the Award and compensation
given.
3. Status-quo will be maintained till a new Award is
passed.
4. The first petitioner has a case that even though an
extent of 60 = cents belong to the landowners,
a small extent has been given a go-by in the
acquisition. To protect this issue, it has been
suggested that a re-verification by the Survey Team
will be done. Thus, an Award will be passed for the
full extent of 60 = cents aforesaid”.
In the light of the suggestions made in the memo which is quoted
above, I find that the writ petition can be disposed of recording these
suggestions, since those will protect the interest of the petitioners.
W.P.(C). 9229/06 4
In the result, the award passed is set aside and the memo dated
03.07.2006 is recorded and the matter is directed to be disposed of by
the respondents-authorities in accordance with the suggestions made
in the memo which are recorded in the judgment.
This petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
smp