Allowed

K.Chandravalli Amma v. District Collector

Kerala HC9 Jan 2008WP(C)/12037/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delayed acquisition and alleged excess possession of land by Railways. Court directed Railways to pay interest on delayed compensation under Section 34 but directed Civil Court for remedies regarding excess possession.

What did the court decide?

Railways to pay interest on Rs.16,747/- deposited on 29.5.2007 from date of possession; remedy for excess possession to be approached in Civil Court.

K.Chandravalli Amma Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 12037 of 2007(G) ---------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

-----------------

¶7

K.CHANDRAVALLI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.P.K.MENON, CHANDRA SADAN, P.O.PALLIPURAM (VIA) PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 305.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.T.DINESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

---------------------

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶12

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A.(RAILWAY), TIRUR.

¶13

3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALAKKAD.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARUDUR (VIA), PALLIPPURAM, PATTAMBI- PALAKKAD DIST.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BENNY GERVASEES R1 & 4 BY ADVOCATE SHRI VARGHESE P.THOMAS R2 & 3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶19

W.P(C) NO.12037 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2008

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

--------------------

¶22

Petitioner is the owner of properties comprised in Sy.Nos.333/3/1 and 347/7 of Parudur Village. A portion of the property was acquired for the development of Pallippuram Railway Station in connection with the doubling of MangaloreShornur railway line. The grievance of the petitioner is that without initiating any proceedings, an extent of 18 cents of land; 12 cents from Sy.No.333/3/1 and 6 cents from Sy.No.347/1, were taken possession of by the Railways even prior to 2002. Petitioner's further case is that the Railways had taken possession of some area in excess of the area stated in the notification. Accordingly she approached the local authority and Women's Commission, etc., but she did not get any relief. According to her information was given to her by the Village Officer that the Railways is in possession of 12 cents of land from Sy.No.333/3/1 and 6 cents of land from Sy.No.347/1. According to the petitioner Exhibits P9 and P9(a)

¶23

W.P(C) NO.12037 OF 2007

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

Sketches show that the Railways had taken possession of excess land. She has also got a grievance that she is denied interest on the amount of Rs.16,747/- as there was delay in depositing the said amount.

¶26

2. In view of the contentions raised, I directed the District Collector to conduct measurement of the exact extent of land taken possession from the petitioner by the Railways with the assistance of either the Taluk Surveyor or the Assistant Superintendent of Survey, Palakkad District, with due notice to the parties and in their presence. The District Collector submitted a report. A plan was also appended along with the report. Even now the petitioner is not satisfied with the report and plan. According to her when the survey party came to the land in question, the entire area was water logged due to heavy rain and they were not in a position to conduct the actual measurement. It was also contended that the survey team for the purpose of submitting a report, prepared a plan and report from the office of the Survey Department. It is not possible to conduct an enquiry as to the correctness of the report submitted by the District Collector in

¶27

W.P(C) NO.12037 OF 2007

¶28

-: 3 :-

¶29

this proceedings. The remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent authority for redressal of her grievances.

¶30

3. According to the respondents initially an extent of 0.0330 hectare of land comprised in R.S. No.333/3/1 was acquired and possession of that land taken and handed over to the Railways. An award was passed and on 7.12.2002 an amount of Rs.12,7109/- was deposited in the court in respect of that land. It is also stated that subsequently another extent of 0.0230 hectare of land comprised in R.S. No.347/7 was also acquired and taken advance possession on 29.12.2004. That was also a paddy land. It is further submitted that an award, LAC No.15 of 2005, was passed on 8.9.2005 but award amount was not deposited in court due to paucity of funds. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.16,747/- was deposited in the court below on 29.5.2007.

¶31

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Railways submitted that the amount was not disbursed to the petitioner as she did not produce any documents.

¶32

5. Regarding the deposit and receipt amount for the

¶33

W.P(C) NO.12037 OF 2007

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

first phase of acquisition, there is no dispute. The dispute is only in respect of the land which was taken possession subsequently. Admittedly, amount was not deposited due to paucity of funds. In R.L.Jain v. DDA (2004) 4 SCC 79) a three Judges Bench held that if compensation is not paid, the land owner is entitled to get interest from the date of dispossession till date of payment. In this case amount was deposited only on 29.5.2007. So the petitioner is entitled to get interest from the date of taking possession of land till the date of deposit in accordance with Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The requisitioning authority shall make available that amount within two months from today. The Land Acquisition Officer shall either issue a cheque in favour of the petitioner or deposit that amount also in court within one month from the date of receipt of the money from the requisitioning authority. It is made clear that if there is failure to make available the amount, petitioner is entitled to get interest as per the statute till the date of payment. I make it clear that petitioner is entitled to get interest only on Rs.16,747/-. Regarding the grievance of the petitioner that

¶36

W.P(C) NO.12037 OF 2007

¶37

-: 5 :-

¶38

the Railways had taken possession excess land, her remedy is to approach a civil court for declaration of title, recovery of possession and fixation of boundary, if so advised.

¶39

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶40

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶41

vsv

¶42

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶43

===================== M.F.A.

¶44

===================== J U D G M E N T

¶45

TH JANUARY, 2008

K.Chandravalli Amma v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chandravalli Amma v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.M.Sidhique Vs John Jacon

Ganeshan Vs Mamiyil Karunakaran

M.S. Sreekumar Vs Union of India

Sree Laxmy Timber Vs P.(C) K.Mohanan

The State of Kerala Vs Vahabu Kannu Sharaf

Kanathekkeveettil Madhavan Vs State of Kerala and Others