Allowed

Fazalu Rahman & Others v. the State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC10 Aug 2010WP(C)/2110/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed the Respondents to sanction funds and issue a Letter of Credit to pay outstanding land acquisition compensation to petitioners within three months, citing unreasonable delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to R1 to sanction amount and issue Letter of Credit within two months; R1-R5 to pass awards and disburse compensation within three months.

Fazalu Rahman & Others Vs the State of Kerala & Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 2110 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

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

¶8

1. C.H.FAZLU RAHMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, AGED 33 YEARS, CHEKIDAPURATH HOUSE, VADAKKEMANNA, KODOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. C.H.HYDERALI, S/O.KUTTIHASSAN HAJI, CHOLASSERY HOUSE, VADAKKEMANNA, KODOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. C.P.MUHAMMED SHAJI, S/O.RUKHIYA, CHERUKADU POTTEKKADU HOUSE, VADAKKEMANNA, KODOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4. KADEEJA.C., W/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, CHEKKATH HOUSE, KUZHIPURAM, OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

5. K.ISMAILKUTTY, KALAPPADAN HOUSE, MAILAPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

6. K.HUSSAIN, S/O.ISMAILKUTTY, KALAPPADAN HOUSE, NOORADI, KODOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

7. P.KUNHAHAMMED, S/O.CHEKKU, PARAVATH HOUSE, NOORADI, KODOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR.

¶16

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶17

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

¶18

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶19

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS AND BRIDGES, TRIVANDRUM.

¶20

W.P.(C). NO.2110/2009-A:

¶21

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D (ROADS DIVISION), MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶22

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶23

5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM.

¶24

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P.(C). NO.2110/2009-A:

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R.1. AS G.O.(RT).NO.72/2005/PWD DTD. 17/01/2005.

¶30

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE R.5. AS NO. A-877/04 DTD. 26/10/2005.

¶31

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02/07/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.4. AS NO. L.A. 25652/2005.

¶32

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R.5. TO THE R.3. DTD. 27/03/2008.

¶33

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PUT ON THE FLOOR OF THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ON 25/11/2008.

¶34

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. FR.5-14293/2007 DTD. 26/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE R.1.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXT.R3.A: AN ALIGNMENT PLAN SHOWING TOTAL LAND REQUIRED AND THE LAND ALREADY UTILIZED FOR THE WORK.

¶37

EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD), ROADS DIVISION, MANJERI IS ADDRESSED TO CHIEF ENGINEER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶42

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.2110 OF 2009

¶43

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2010.

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

The petitioners are the residents of Kodoor in Malappuram District. For the purpose of construction of an approach road for Nooradi Bridge in Malappuram, the properties of the petitioners were acquired. Exhibit P1 is the notification issued by the Government invoking the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act. Exhibit P2 is the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The properties were surrendered and the approach road has been constructed, and the bridge was put to use for traffic also from 2005 onwards.

¶46

Exhibit P3 is the proceedings issued by the District Collector which reflects the decision to expedite the acquisition proceedings as a fast track project, to pass the Award within a period of eight months and to distribute the compensation also accordingly. Till now, the petitioners are not paid the compensation, is the complaint raised in the writ petition.

¶47

W.P.(C) No.2110/2009

¶48

¶49

Going by Exhibit P4 communication, the total amount required for disbursement of compensation will be Rs.5.5 crores.

¶50

The same is clear from the reply given in the floor of the Kerala Legislative Assembly, which is evidenced by Exhibit P5 dated 25.11.2008. The 2^nd respondent has thereafter requested the Government, as per Exhibit P6, to see that the amount allotted for payment of compensation to the parties concerned.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of the lapse of nearly 5 years, the petitioners are yet to receive the compensation. It is pointed out that the urgency clause was invoked and it is only because of the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 that the compensation is not received by the petitioners so far.

¶52

The 5^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The Requisitioning Authority is PWD and the requisition was made by the Executive Engineer and appropriate sanction was given by the Government as per G.O.(Rt) No.937/2004/PWD dated 24.09.2004, and to invoke the urgency clause also the Government accorded sanction as per G.O.(Rt) No.72/2005/PWD

¶53

W.P.(C) No.2110/2009

¶54

¶55

dated 17.01.2005. Various proceedings dealing with acquisition have been detailed in the counter affidavit.

¶56

The counter affidavit also shows that the Award enquiry was conducted on 15^th to 18^th of April 2008. The draft Award can be submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer for previous approval only on obtaining necessary funds from the Requisitioning Authority and strict directions were given to the Requisitioning Authority to submit the same several times from 26.03.2008. It is stated that such repeated requests were made on 03.05.2008, 24.05.2008, 19.06.2008 and 03.12.2008 and the fund has not been provided so far. The Land Acquisition Officer could not pass the Awards and disburse the amount to the parties.

¶57

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the light of the decision of this Court in Fr. Paul Chakiath vs. State of Kerala (2005(3)KLT 182) , the acquisition proceedings cannot be said to have elapsed. The petitioners could not receive the compensation so far in spite of the road being constructed and put to use for lack of availability

¶58

W.P.(C) No.2110/2009

¶59

¶60

of funds by the Requisitioning Authority. Any offer to pay the amount will not help them and payments will have to be effected expeditiously.

¶61

It is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent that the properties of the petitioners along with that of 10 others have been utilised for the widening and formation of immediate approaches of the bridge on consent of the owners. The traffic was restored on 13.01.2005. In paragraph 7 therein it is stated that the amount required to pass the Awards of the above mentioned L.A case will immediately be placed under the disposal of Revenue Department on receipt of Letter of Credit from the Government. Therefore, the entire thing

¶62

depends upon the further immediate action on the part of the Government, in the light of the unreasonable delay in the whole matter.

¶63

There will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to see that the amount is sanctioned and Letter of Credit is issued to the PWD within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Every efforts should be made to pass the

¶64

W.P.(C) No.2110/2009

¶65

¶66

Awards and disburse the compensation to the petitioners after making available the funds by the Government. The same shall be done by the respondents 1 to 5 and the amount shall be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. While passing the Award, the entitlement of the petitioners for various benefits under the Land Acquisition Act will also be considered.

¶67

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶68

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶69

smp

Fazalu Rahman & Others v. the State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fazalu Rahman & Others v. the State of Kerala & Others

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

Suneesh T.S. Vs M.N.Ramachandran Nair

The Mlamallay Tea Estate Ltd. Vs the Presiding Officer, Labour Court

P.Balan Vs State of Kerala

P.Gandhimohan Vs District Collector,Palghat

M/S.Excel Glasses Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

J.S.Jayan Vs Addl.Sales Tax Officer-I