Allowed

State of Kerala v. Rajan.N

Kerala HC17 Jul 2018WA/22/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the High Court of Kerala set aside a single judge's direction to consider a belated Section 18 reference application under the Land Acquisition Act treated as filed within time, citing inconsistencies in the petitioners' stand on filing such applications.

What did the court decide?

Direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the Section 18 application treating it as filed within time was set aside.

State of Kerala Vs Rajan.N — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶6

WA.No. 22 of 2016 IN WPC. 22465/2012

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22465/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-04-2015

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C)

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE KUDAPPANAKUNNU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.

¶11

3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE LAND ACQUISITION(NH) KEDSAVADASAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEKCHAND V.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C):

¶14

1. RAJAN.N MULLAYARATHALAKKAL VEEDU, MALAYINKEEZH P.O., PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R.S BHAVAN, NEERAMANKUZHI, OORUTAMBALAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

2. SINDHU.P.G

¶16

W/O.RAJAN N, MULLAYARATHALAKKAL VEEDU, MALAYINKEEZH P.O, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT R.S BHAVAN, NEERAMANKUZHI, OORUTAMBALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶17

R. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

vpv

¶20

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ. &

¶21

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶22

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶23

W.A.No.22 of 2016

¶24

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ.

¶27

This case was adjourned on 16.7.2018 with the following order:

¶28

“The lands of the petitioners were subjected to acquisition, and thereafter the compensation was received under protest as per the award. In the earlier round in W.P.(C).No.112/2010 this Court issued direction to consider the reference claim under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as “the LA Act”]. However the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram found that application under Section 18 was never filed, and accordingly, the Reference claim was rejected on 13.9.2010.

¶29

When the Ext.P6 order was challenged, the learned Single Judge under the judgment dated 6.4.2015, after considering the affidavit of the Advocate [Ext.P7], which suggests that the Reference application was submitted in presence of the Advocate, directed the authorities to consider the subsequently filed application under Section 18, by treating it to have been filed within time, for an appropriate decision on enhancement of compensation.

¶30

Aggrieved by the above judgment, the State is in appeal. The learned Government Pleader refers to the Annexure-I application under Section 28 A of the LA Act, preferred by the two writ petitioners, to point out that they have acknowledged in paragraph 5 thereof that, they could not submit the Reference application under Section 18 of the LA Act. Moreover, although the Annexure-I is the petitioners' application for enhanced compensation under Section 28 A, in the writ proceedings, the land owners had taken a contrary stand that they have not claimed enhancement under Section 28 A of the LA Act.

¶31

The above inconsistencies are required to be resolved, and accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners' seeks time. A days' time is thus granted to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader however on the basis of the records available with him, submits that the petitioners' application under Section 28 A was rejected on 19.12.2014. This negative decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, when the

¶33

W.A.No.22 of 2016

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

judgment in the present proceedings was recorded subsequently on 6.4.2015.

¶36

In view of the above, the matter be called again tomorrow.”

¶37

The learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Tekchand V. refers to the memo

¶38

filed by the Senior Government Pleader to point out that the Special Tahsildar, Office of the Land Acquisition (NH), Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram, had considered the application filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act by the appellant/writ petitioner, but as the application was filed beyond three months of the award by the Collector, the same was not entertained on merit.

¶39

As regards the confusion on the Section 18 application under the Land Acquisition Act, the learned counsel for the land owner Sri.R.S.Kalkura submits that the Section 18 application was first filed in the year 2006 and the 2^nd application came to be filed in the year 2010. But these were inadvertently overlooked when the Annexure-I application dated 15.7.2011 was prepared where a contrary stand was pleaded. In paragraph 5 of the application it was incorrectly stated that the petitioner failed to submit the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶40

As earlier recorded, the learned Judge had taken note of the contention of the petitioners to the effect that they did not apply under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act to demand higher compensation. The case record on the other hand shows that in fact, such an application was belatedly filed but the same was rejected by the Special Tahsildar on 20.12.2014.

¶41

In the above circumstances, we find no justification for directing the Special Tahsildar (the 3^rd respondent) to consider the writ petitioner's application, under Section

¶42

W.A.No.22 of 2016

¶43

-:3:-

¶44

18 of the Land Acquisition Act. To this extent, we interfere with the contrary direction,

¶45

given by the learned Judge.

¶46

With the above order, the Writ Appeal stands allowed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

Hrishikesh Roy, Acting Chief Justice

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge

¶51

/true copy/

¶52

P.A. To Judge

¶53

vpv

State of Kerala v. Rajan.N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Rajan.N

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

V.P.Muraleedharan Vs Rejeev Sadananadan

Ayoob Khan S. Vs the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India

Satheeshkumar Vs the District Collector

Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Mahinsha Aboobacker Vs the Union of India

Johnson K.J. Vs Mr. Pramod