Allowed

Pattamthodi Vasudevan v. the Special Tahsildar(La)

Kerala HC9 Nov 2015WP(C)/4940/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought enhancement of land acquisition compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the reference application on limitation grounds, insisting on a six-week period. The court held that without notice under Section 12(2) and the claimant's absence at the hearing, the six-month limitation from the date of knowledge applied. The rejection order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Written petition allowed; impugned communication rejected by the Special Tahsildar quashed; respondent directed to forward the application to the Reference Court within two months.

Pattamthodi Vasudevan Vs the Special Tahsildar(La) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/18TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4940 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

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

¶8

PATTAMTHODI VASUDEVAN, AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF RAMAN, PATTAMTHODI HOUSE, ELAMKULAM KUNNAKKAVU.P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.

¶13

2. THE DISTRIC COLLECTOR,

¶14

MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLEGIATE EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K. RAFEEK

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.4940 OF 2012

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXTP1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO.2/2011 DATED 1/6/2011 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT - LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶22

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1/8/2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITINER UNDER SEC.18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶23

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

K. HARILAL, J.

W.P. (C) No.4940 of 2012-N

¶28

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner is the claimant whose property having an extent of 59.55 cents in Sy.Nos.74/7, 74/6 and 74/5 in Elamkulam Village in Malappuram District has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 application preferred by the petitioner under Sec.18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the compensation with respect to a part of the land having an extent of 36.55 cents stands rejected by Ext.P3 communication issued by the 1^st respondent on the ground that Ext.P2 application is filed after a period of 'six weeks' from the date of Ext.P1 award and is, therefore, barred by limitation. According to the

¶31

W.P. (C) No.4940 of 2012 -: 2 :-

¶32

petitioner, no notice as contemplated under Sec.12(2) the Act was received by the petitioner with respect to the passing of the award. So also, the petitioner was not present at the time of passing the award. The sum and substance of the contentions raised in this writ petition is that the period of limitation of 'six weeks' as contemplated under sub-section (2)(b) of Sec.18 of the Act is not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to get 'six months' time from the date of knowledge of the Collector's award.

¶33

Per contra, in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, it is contended that notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act is an information to the interested parties in an award to receive the compensation awarded within a specified date shown in the notice. In this case, the compensation is awarded as deposit in court under Sec.30 of the Act, and hence it is not necessary to give notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act. So, a copy of the award was served on the petitioner under Clause (b) of sub-

¶34

W.P. (C) No.4940 of 2012 -: 3 :-

¶35

section (2) of Sec.18 of the Act. Reference application shall be made within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of the notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act or within 'six months' from the date of award whichever first expires. In a case where notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act is not necessary, reference application for enhanced compensation shall be made within the time limit specified as per Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Sec.18 of the Act i.e., within 'six weeks' from the date of award.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments challenging the findings of the Land Acquisition Officer that the petitioner ought to have filed the application within 'six weeks' from the date of award. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a case where the claimant was not present when the award was passed and no notice

¶38

W.P. (C) No.4940 of 2012 -: 4 :-

¶39

under sub-section (2) of Sec.12 of the Act was issued to the claimant, the period of limitation provided under Sec.18(2) of the Act is 'six months' and not 'six weeks' as contended by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶40

To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision reported in Reena George v. Special Tahsildar [2005 (1) KLT 79].

¶41

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader advanced arguments to justify the findings of the Land Acquisition Officer that the period of limitation prescribed to the petitioner, even though no notice under Sec.(12)(2) of the Act was issued, is six weeks.

¶42

The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Land Acquisition Officer is justified in finding that in the instant case the period of limitation provided to file an application is 'six weeks' only.

¶43

Going by the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, it is seen that indisputably, no

¶44

W.P. (C) No.4940 of 2012 -: 5 :-

¶45

notice under Sec.12(2) was issued to the petitioner. Similarly, even though the petitioner has specifically contended that the petitioner was not present or represented before the District Collector at the time when the Collector passed the award. The said contention has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Therefore, it stands admitted that no notice under Sec.12(2) of the Act had been issued to the petitioner and either the petitioner or his representative was present before the District Collector at the time when he made the award. So also, it stands admitted that the award was passed on 1/6/2011 and reference application was filed on 1/8/2011. Thus, the petitioner had taken hardly two months to file the reference application, after the receipt of the award.

¶46

Going by the period of limitation, provided under Sec.18(2) of the Act, it is seen that 'six weeks' time is provided to the cases, where a notice under Sec.12(2) had been issued to the claimant or either

¶47

W.P. (C) No.4940 of 2012 -: 6 :-

¶48

the claimant or his representative was present before the District Collector when he made the award. Admittedly, the above situation is not attracted to the instant case. In Reena George v. Special Tahsildar [2005 (1) KLT 79], this Court observed that it is by now trite that when the claimant has not been served under Sec.12(2) and when the award is not passed in the presence of the claimant, for the purpose of Sec.18(2)(b), the expression 'six months from the date of the award' means 'six months from the date of knowledge of the award by the party'. Here, indisputably, reference application was filed hardly after two months after the date of the award only. Here, the date of knowledge is also irrelevant because the application seeking reference was filed within six months from the date of award.

¶49

In the above analysis, I find that the period of limitation available to the petitioner in the instant case is 'six months from the date of award' and not 'six weeks from the date of award' and the petitioner

¶50

W.P. (C) No.4940 of 2012

¶51

-: 7 :-

¶52

has filed Ext.P2 application for reference within that period.

¶53

Consequently, Ext.P3 notice issued by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner will stand quashed and the 1^st respondent is directed to forward Ext.P2 application to the Reference Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶54

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶57

Nan/

¶58

//true copy//

¶59

P.S. to Judge

Pattamthodi Vasudevan v. the Special Tahsildar(La)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattamthodi Vasudevan v. the Special Tahsildar(La)

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

Sumathi Amma Vs the Omalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Rema v. Vs the State of Kerala

The Research Director Vs Labour Court

Keerthi Harishankar Joshi Vs the State of Kerala

Deity of Sri.Alancherry Devi Temple, Rep. by Next Friend and Devotee, K.R.Ramanunni Vs State of Kerala

C.P. Padmanabhan Vs Assistant Registrar