Dismissed

Amina v. District Collector

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016WP(C)/34199/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court clarified that land acquisition compensation cannot have income tax deducted. Relying on a precedent Division Bench decision and Section 96 of the LARR Act, 2013, the court ordered the disbursement of the entire compensation amount without any income tax deduction.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to disburse the land acquisition compensation to the petitioners without deducting any amount towards income tax.

Amina Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34199 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. AMINA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.LATE ASKA ABDUL RAHMAN, ASKA COTTAGE, NEAR IQBAL HIGH SCHOOL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.

¶8

2. ABID P.A., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASKA ABDUL RAHMAN, ASKA COTTAGE, NEAR IQBAL HIGH SCHOOL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.

¶9

3. SHAJUDHEEN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASKA ABDUL RAHMAN, ASKA COTTAGE, NEAR IQBAL HIGH SCHOOL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.

¶10

4. ZAHIDA KHALID, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.LATE ASKA ABDUL RAHMAN, ASKA COTTAGE, NEAR IQBAL HIGH SCHOOL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.

¶11

5. MUHAMMED SHABIR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASKA ABDUL RAHMAN, ASKA COTTAGE, NEAR IQBAL HIGH SCHOOL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.

¶12

6. MUHAMMED SADIQUE, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASKA ABDUL RAHMAN, ASKA COTTAGE, NEAR IQBAL HIGH SCHOOL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.

¶13

7. MUHAMMED SADIRI, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASKA ABDUL RAHMAN, ASKA COTTAGE, NEAR IQBAL HIGH SCHOOL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.

Msv/

-2-

-2-

WP(C).No. 34199 of 2016 (Y)

¶18

8. MUHAMMED SHEHID, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.LATE ASKA ABDUL RAHMAN, ASKA COTTAGE, NEAR IQBAL HIGH SCHOOL, AJANUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED

¶20

RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KASARGOD-671 121.

¶22

2. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA),

¶23

KASARGOD-671 121.

¶24

3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

¶25

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN R3 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

msv/

¶28

WP(C).No. 34199 of 2016 (Y)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19-9-2016. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3-10-2016. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-5-2016 IN WP.12485/2016. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8-8-2016 IN WA 1528/2016.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 34199 of 2016

¶39

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to the respondents to disburse the whole land acquisition compensation as due to the petitioners without any deduction of income tax.

¶42

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶43

issue is already covered by judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12194 of 2016 and connected cases, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as under:

¶44

“3. It is seen that the very same issue has been considered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1536 of 2016, whereby the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12484 of 2016 and connected cases has been upheld. The learned Division Bench in the judgment dated 08.08.2016 in W.A. No. 1536 of 2016 has held thus:

¶45

“3. We find that the judgment of the learned single Judge is just and proper in as much as Section 96 of the Act, 2013 clearly discloses that no income tax or stamp duty shall

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 34199 of 2016

¶47

-2-

¶48

be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under Section 46. It is not in dispute that Section 46 of the Act, 2013 is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is amply clear that as per Section 96 of the Act, 2013, exemption is provided for levying income tax and stamp duty. In an identical case, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1422 of 2015 has already concluded that income tax is not liable to be deducted from the compensation payable to similarly placed persons. The learned single Judge, following the dictum laid down in W.A. No. 1422 of 2015 and observing the provisions of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, has allowed the writ petitions directing the authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner, without deducting any amount towards income tax or stamp duty.”

¶49

In the light of the above, the legal position now stands clarified that in view of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, the deduction towards income tax cannot be made from the compensation payable to the land owners. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifying the position as above and directing that the compensation be disbursed to the petitioners without deducting any amount towards income tax.”

¶50

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, I do not think that anything further survives to be decided in the present writ petition. The amount shall be disbursed to the petitioners taking note of Section 96 of the Right to Fair

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 34199 of 2016

¶52

-3-

¶53

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶54

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

Sd/A.M. SHAFFIQUE

¶56

JUDGE