Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Sadique Muhammed

Kerala HC7 Jul 2017RP/139/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interim order dismissing a review petition filed against a judgment that allowed compensation under the new Land Acquisition Act despite agreements executed after the old Act's repeal. The court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves past operations, but since agreements were executed after the repeal date, no saving applies.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; direction to pass supplemental award under the new Act stands.

State of Kerala Vs Sadique Muhammed — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2017/16TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 139 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18795/2016 DATED 7.06.2016

¶7

-----------

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶12

4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)

¶13

N.H.NO.1, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶14

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶16

1. SADIQUE MUHAMMED, S/O BAVA YOUSAF, KARIKKANAKUDIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686673.

¶17

2. K.A. KAMALA, W/O LATE M.K. SASIDHARAN NAIR, MANAGLATH HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686673.

¶18

3. P.J.SUMATHIAMMA, W/O. LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KUMARI SADHANAM, KADATHY EAST,MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM, PIN 686673.

¶19

4. SUKUMARAN P.K, S/O KUTTAN, PALAZHI HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686673.

¶20

RP.No. 139 of 2017 ()

¶21

5. A.M. BABY, S/O ALEYAS, ARAKKAKUNNEL, PERAMADAM KARA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, PERAMADOM PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686667.
6. PAULOSE T . KURIAN, S/O T.V. KURIAN, FLAT NO.2D(50/1437), LANE-34, JANATHA ROAD, VYTILA, PIN 682019.
7. M.G.GOKULNATH, S/O LATE GOVINDHAN NAIR, MANGALATH HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686673.
8. K.N.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, KARUKAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHERUVATHOOR PO,KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686691.
9. NARAYANI AMMA BHAVANI AMMA, W/O LATE SREEDHARAN NAIR, VADEKKETHUDIYINAL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686673.
10.SANTHOSH KUMAR C.K, S/O LATE C.K. SUKUMARAN, CHALAKARA HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,PIN 686673
11.GEETHA JAMES, W/O JAMES VARGHESE, NEDUMCHALIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY, MUDAVOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM PIN 686669.
12.M.J. JACOB, S/O JOSEPH, MENACHERIL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686673.
13. BIJUKUTTY JOHN, S/O YOHANNAN, VILLAMPUZHA PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, KARIMPANA PO, NORTH PALAKKUZHA, MOOVATTUPUZHA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAMPUHA, PUTHANPURAIL HOUSE, KAVUMPADY ROAD, MOOVATTUPUZHA PO, ERNAKULAM-686661, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER/FATHER YOHANNAN.
14.K.K. GOPALAN, S/O KUTTAN, KUMARAPILLIL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686673.
15.SULOCHANA W/O PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THUDIYANALTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686673.
16.BABU KANDANKULATHY S/O LONAPPAN, KANDANKULATHIL HOUSE,
KARUKUTTY PO, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683576.

¶22

RP.No. 139 of 2017 ()

¶23

17.V.K.MARY

¶24

W/O M.M. JHOSEPH, MANGALATH (THOTTUNGAL) HOUSE, PALAKKUZHA PO, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686686.

¶25

18.GOPALAKRISHANAN NAIR @ VIJAYAN, S/O LATE SREEDHARAN NAIR, VADAKKETHUDIYANAL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686673.

¶26

19.SUNITHA MURALEEDHARAN

¶27

W/O LATE MURALEEDHARAN, MUTHAYIL KARTHIKA HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686673.

¶28

20.ANITHA KUMARY @ LALY,

¶29

W/O LATE BHASKARAN NAIR @ MADHU, VADAKKETHUDIYANAL HOUSE,KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686673.

¶30

21.V.S.REGHU

¶31

S/O LATE SREEDHARAN NAIR, VADAKKETHUDIYANAL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET PO, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686673.

¶32

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN

¶33

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

K.V.

¶35

RP.No. 139 of 2017 ()

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶38

A1; TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO 5218/13/RD DATED 28.9.2013.

¶39

A2: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSELT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶40

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K.V.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶45

R.P.No.139 of 2017

¶46

¶47

W.P.(C)No.18795 of 2016

¶48

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2017

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

The respondents in the writ petition seek review of the judgment. The parties are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ petition.

¶51

The properties owned by the petitioners have been though notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the old Act'), awards have not been passed till 01.01.2014, on which day the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the new Act') came into force. The fact that awards have been passed under the old Act after 01.01.2014 is not disputed by the petitioners. According to them, since the awards have not been passed under the old Act on or before 01.01.2014,

¶52

R.P.No.139 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.18795 of 2016

¶53

¶54

they are entitled to compensation for the properties acquired from them in accordance with the provisions contained in the new Act. The writ petition was allowed following the judgments rendered in identical cases directing the fourth respondent to pass supplemental awards in respect of the properties under the new Act. The said judgment is sought to be reviewed in this proceedings.

¶55

Heard the learned Government Pleader as

¶56

also the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.

¶57

It is pointed out by the learned Government

¶58

Pleader that awards have been passed in respect of the properties owned by the petitioners under Section 11(2) of the old Act in terms of the agreements entered into by the authorities with the petitioners in Form 10(a) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 and such awards are valid notwithstanding the fact that the new Act came into force in the meanwhile. The learned Government Pleader has relied on clause (c) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

¶59

R.P.No.139 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.18795 of 2016

¶60

¶61

to substantiate the said contention.

¶62

Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the new Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the new Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the old Act, where no award under Section 11 of the old Act has been made, then, all provisions of the new Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. In other words, the scheme of the new Act is that if award has not been passed in furtherance to a proceedings initiated under the old Act, the parties are entitled to compensation for the properties under the new Act. It is in the said circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of directing the authorities to pass supplemental awards in accordance with the provisions contained in the new Act.

¶63

The old Act was repealed by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 114 of the new Act. Clause (c) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that where any Central Act repeals any enactment hitherto

¶64

R.P.No.139 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.18795 of 2016

¶65

¶66

made or hereinafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. Section 6 of the General

¶67

Clauses Act reads thus:

¶68

Effect of repeal

¶69

Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-

¶70

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

¶71

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

¶72

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

¶73

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

¶74

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid,

¶75

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.”

¶76

In order to attract the saving provision contained in Section

¶77

R.P.No.139 of 2017 in W.P.(C)No.18795 of 2016

¶78

¶79

6 of the General Clauses Act, the award must have been passed or at least the agreement must have been executed before the repeal. As noted above, the old Act was repealed with effect from 01.01.2014. It is conceded by the learned Government Pleader that even the agreements in Form 10(a) of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules, 1990 have been executed with the petitioners after 01.01.2014. In the said view of the matter, there is no error apparent on the face of the records warranting interference in the review jurisdiction. The Review Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶80

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶81

skj

¶82

True copy

¶83

P.A. to Judge

State of Kerala v. Sadique Muhammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Sadique Muhammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thamarakshy M Vs Rajamanikyam

N. Haseena Vs S. Venkatesapathy

Stibin Stephen Vs the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur

Santhosh Cyriac Vs Rajamanikyam

The Calicut City Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.D.2777 Vs S.Lalithabika IAS

M.M.Basheer Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Society