Allowed

Suma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2017WP(C)/9342/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, District Collector, to quantify and pay 50% compensation within three months and the balance in another three months with interest, after a failure to pay the agreed sum following a Lok Adalath award. The court held the Government liable to pay.

What did the court decide?

The District Collector was directed to quantify dues, pay 50% within three months and the balance within another three months with interest.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 9342 of 2017 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUMA

¶8

D/O.SWAYAMPRABHA, MELATHI VEEDU, MUNDAYIL, VARKALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 005.

¶13

3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL L.A.UNIT, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035.

¶14

4. THE SECRETARY, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM 695 101.

¶15

R1-R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE IYPE R4 BY SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR, SC, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 9342 of 2017 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

--------- EXT.P1	-------------- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 20/8/2010 IN L.A.A 453/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.69/2008 IN LAR 26/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT. 31/1/2016 OF THE LOK ADALATH
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶28

W.P(C). No.9342 of 2017 [P]

¶29

---------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2017

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non disbursement of the compensation amount, as enhanced by the Sub Court, which is also confirmed in appeal.

¶32

The petitioner's land was acquired on the requisition of the 4^th respondent. After the enhancement of compensation was confirmed in appeal, and pending an Execution Petition, a Lok Adalath was held on 31.01.2016, in which Ext.P3 Award was passed. The matter was agreed to be settled on payment of Rs.27,00,000/-. The judgment debtors were directed to deposit

¶33

W.P(C). No.9342 of 2017 [P] -2-

¶34

the amount within six months from the date of the Award, failing which the decree holder was entitled to interest. Obviously, the Government did not deposit the amount as directed in the Lok Adalath.

¶35

The submission of the learned Government

¶36

Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 is that the 4^th respondent, requisitioning authority, has not disbursed the amounts. The 4^th respondent expresses helplessness insofar as there being no funds available.

¶37

The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Corporation of Cochin v. Michael Luiz

¶38

[1995 KHC 305] , wherein this Court found that notwithstanding the fact that an acquisition is made on behalf of the Company or of a local authority, the obligation to pay the compensation for a land acquired under the Act

¶39

W.P(C). No.9342 of 2017 [P] -3-

¶40

is that of the Government. It was also held that attachment of assets of requisitioning authority cannot be ordered by the Executing Court.

¶41

In the present case, it is to be noticed that a Lok Adalath was held and there was an Award passed at Ext.P3, in which the Government had also received some concessions; which the petitioner, the landowner, agreed to, for expeditious disbursal of the amounts. The amounts, as agreed in Ext.P3, were not deposited within the period, thus making a mockery of the Lok Adalath conducted, in which the Government also participated. In any event, as of now, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.27,00,000/- with interest from 31.01.2016.

¶42

The learned Counsel for the

¶43

W.P(C). No.9342 of 2017 [P] -4-

¶44

Municipality, in fact, points out that there were judgments with respect to the very same acquisition, in which this Court had directed remittance of the agreed amount along with interest within a period of time, as specified by the Court. The District Collector is also said to have complied with the said orders by directing the Tahsildar to make the payments.

¶45

In such circumstance, the District Collector, the 2^nd respondent, shall quantify the amounts with interest and inform the petitioner the amounts due as on 30.11.2017, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The District Collector shall also pay 50% of the amounts within three months therefrom and the balance 50% within another three months. The petitioner shall also be entitled to future

¶46

W.P(C). No.9342 of 2017 [P] -5-

¶47

interest, which shall be paid after the entire amounts due as on 30.11.2017 is first

¶48

deposited. The Government would be entitled to proceed against the Municipality.

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Sd/-

¶50

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶51

//True Copy//

¶52

P.A. to Judge

¶53

sp/15/11/17

Suma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suma v. State of Kerala

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

V. Sudarsanan Vs the District Collector

Anoop Balakrishnan Nair Krishna Vs Regional Passport Officer

Chalil Mariya Vs Tahasildar, Chavakkad Taluk

M. Muhammed Ali Vs District Collector

Reni Koyipram Vs T Madhu

P.a.Babu Vs State of Kerala