Dismissed

Ammini Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2018WP(C)/3595/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act. The court held that petitioners were barred by delay, laches, and estoppel as they failed to challenge revised awards passed under the new Act during the petition's pendency, while accepting compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners denied a declaration that proceedings were invalid and directed not to enter property; petition for quashing the land acquisition proceedings dismissed due to bar of limitation, laches, an

Ammini Amma Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3595 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 AMMINI AMMA KULATHINTE VADAKKATHIL, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SARALA PUNNAPPARAMBIL, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

3 RAMACHANDRAN JAYASREE NIVAS, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

4 JAYASREE JAYASREE NIVAS, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

5 GEETHA.R. KATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU, KARICHAL MURI, KARICHAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

6 SOMAN P. VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHI VILALGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

7 REVI KUMAR VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHI VILALGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

8 HARIKUMAR VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHI VILALGE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA,

¶15

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶16

¶17

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶18

9 BIJU KUMAR VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHI VILALGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶19

10 KARTHIYANI AMMA VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHI VILALGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶20

11 KRISHNAMMA SOMAN SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI, MARUTHORVATTOM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶21

12 P.N.DILEEP PALATHITTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, KUNNUMMA P.O., THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.CHELLAMMA, PALATHITTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, KUNNUMMA P.O., THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶22

13 P.N.MINI PALATHITTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, KUNNUMMA P.O., THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, M.CHELLAMMA, PALATHITTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, KUNNUMMA P.O., THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR SMT.UMA SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.S.PRASANTH

¶24

RESPONDENT/S:

¶25

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶26

2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

¶27

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶28

¶29

REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶30

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶31

4 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR LAND ACQUISITION (RAILWAYS), KAYAMKULAM- 690 502.

¶32

5 THE DIVISIONAL MANGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4, SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC FOR R5

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶37

¶38

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C)No.3595 OF 2016

¶41

¶42

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2018

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows :

¶45

“ 1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents to follow the procedure laid down in The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for effecting land acquisition in respect of the petitioner's property.

¶46

ii. Declare that the respondents and their officials are not entitled to enter and carry out constructions or effect modifications in the petitioner's property till the land is taken into their possession in accordance with the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶47

iii. Declare that advance possession of the acquired land could be made only on payment of substantial sum of the compensation due as contemplated under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and that any consent given for the same s not binding without complying with the conditions stipulated in the provision and that the

¶48

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶49

¶50

consent obtained on the basis of the notification which is lapsed in terms of section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act is not valid.”

¶51

The case projected by the petitioners is that they are aggrieved by

¶52

the action of the official respondents in the matter of acquisition of land for the

¶53

doubling of the existing railway line between Haripad and Ambalappuzha. At the outset they would state that they are not against the acquisition proceedings, but are aggrieved by the methods adopted for the said purpose, that the instant proceedings for land acquisition have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 long prior to the coming into force of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( herein after referred to as New 2013 Act ( Act 2013) ( Central Act 2013) which came into force on 1.1.2014. It is further stated by the petitioners that Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in Extra Ordinary Gazette No.1425 dated 24.6.2010 and that to the knowledge of the petitioner no declaration under Section 6 was made within the time limit of one year as per the statute. Further that, no award has been passed in the above said process within the time limit of two years fixed under Section 11 A of the Act and that the entire proceedings under the land acquisition has lapsed, that the respondents are proceeding as if old notification is in force. It is further contended that the respondents are obliged in law to see

¶54

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶55

¶56

that the provisions under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is to be invoked and the same has not been done and that the respondents are trespassing into the properties of the petitioners. In the light of these factual aspects that the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with the abovementioned prayers.

¶57

The learned Government Pleader was instructed to get instructions in the matter. The learned Government Pleader has made available the instructions made available by the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition ( Railways),who is the notified land acquisition officer in this case as per his letter No.B 212/16 dated 21.11.2018. In the written instruction, it has been appraised by the land acquisition officer that in the instant case land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the Old Act Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules 1990. Thereafter the new Act came into force on 1.1.2014 and the Rules were framed on 19.9.2015. Further that the award has been passed and compensation amount were disbursed to the affected parties and that compensation amount were disbursed to all the petitioners as per the New Act 2013. All the petitioner except the 5^th petitioner Smt.Geetha R. have received the entire compensation and four of the above 30 petitioners had also submitted reference application.

¶58

The details of notification issued under Land Acquisition Act, 1894

¶59

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶60

¶61

are also given therein which reads as follows :

¶62

“Notification under section 4(1) & 17(1):-

¶63

Gazette - No.1425, dtd. 24.6.2010 Mathrubhumi daily - 21.9.2010 Malayala Manorama Daily - 28.9.2010 & 30.9.2010 Declaration under Section 6(1):-

¶64

Gazette - No.1208, dtd.18.6.11 Mathrubhumi Daily - 24.8.2011 Mangalam Daily - 25.8.2011”

¶65

Further, it is also submitted by the learned Senior Government

¶66

Pleader on the basis of the instruction that earlier the 4^th respondent had passed awards in the instant case under the old Act, but after the coming into force of the New Act. Thereafter in view of the various judgments issued by this court that in such contingencies due to the application of Section 24(1) of the New Act, revised awards are to be passed under the new Act. Accordingly the land acquisition officer has passed revised awards under the new Act in respect of

¶67

the petitioners herein in March, 2018, December 2017, February 2018, July 2017 etc. The details of the awards passed and the compensation received etc. in respect of the petitioners herein are also given in tabular column made available by the learned Government Pleader which reads as follows :

¶68

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶69

¶70

Sl No	Name and address of the petitioner	LAC NO.	Awa rd No.	Date of final award	Award Amount	Whether the petitioner received the compensati on	Date of receipt of compen sation	Date of reference applicati on
1	AMMINI AMMA KULATHINTE VADAKKATHILANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA,	111/14/ Cheruthana	41/ 17	08/03 /18	1511790	Yes	25.06.16 17.04.18	26/03/18
2	SARALA PUNNAPPARAMBIL, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA	113/14/ Cheruthana	41/ 17	08/03 /18	580596	Yes	20.7.16 17.4.18	26/03/18
3	RAMACHANDRAN JAYASREE NIVAS, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA	114/14/ Cheruthana	41/ 17	08/03 /18	215345	Yes	20.7.16 28.4.18	27/03/18
4	JAYASREE JAYASREE NIVAS, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA,	112/14/ Cheruthana	41/ 17	08/03 /18	190593	Yes	16.12.16 28.04.18	27/03/18
5	GEETHA.R. KATHIRAPPALLIL VEEDU, KARICHAL MURI, KARICHAL,	4/12/ Veeyapuram		28/12 /17	1879932	No	Compensatio n amount deposited in the Sub Court, Mavelikara on 14.10.2014 and LAR &R authority on 28.2.2018	Not submitted
6	SOMAN P. VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY REPRESENTED BY THE P/A KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI,CHERTHALA	153/14/ Thakazhy	4/ 17	09/02 /18	3371568	Yes	12.4.16 27.7.18	Not submitted
7	RAVIKUMAR VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY REPRESENTED BY THE P/A KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI,CHERTHALA	153/14/ Thakazhy	4/ 17	09/02 /18	3371568	Yes	12.4.16 27.7.18	Not submitted
8	HARIKUMAR VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY	153/14/ Thakazhy	4/ 17	09/02 /18	3371568	Yes	12/4/16 27/7/18	Not submitted

¶71

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶72

¶73

REPRESENTED BY THE P/A KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI,CHERTHALA
9 BIJUKUMAR VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY REPRESENTED BY THE P/A KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI,CHERTHALA	153/14/ Thakazhy	4/ 17 09/02 /18	3371568	Yes	12/4/16 27/7/18	Not submitted
10 KARTHIYANI AMMA, VALIYAPARAMBIL, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY REPRESENTED BY THE P/A KRISHNAMMA SOMAN, SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI,CHERTHALA	153/14/ Thakazhy	4/ 17 09/02 /18	3371568	Yes	12/4/16 27/7/18	Not submitted
11 KRISHNAMMA SOMAN SREESAILAM, MARUTHORVATTOM MURI, CHERTHALA	62/14/ Thakazhy	8/ 17 12/12 /17	288361	Yes	22/2/17 22/1/18	Not submitted
12 P.N.DILEEP PALATHITTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY, REPRESENTED BY THE P/A M.CHELLAMMA, PALATHITTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY,	146/14/ Thakazhy	4/ 17 18/07 /17	1992166	Yes	16/12/17	Not submitted
13 P.N.MINI PALATHITTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY, REPRESENTED BY THE P/A M.CHELLAMMA, PALATHITTA VEEDU, KUNNUMMA MURI, THAKAZHY,	46/14/ Thakazhy 147/14/ Thakazhy	10/ 17 4/ 17 10/01 /18 18/07 /17	719023 526266	Yes	31/7/2015 23/3/18 16/12/17	Not submitted

¶74

Going by the pleadings and materials on record, it can be seen that

¶75

the period of limitation as between the issuance of Section 4(1) notification and

¶76

Section 6(1) declaration notification has been adhered to in the instant case.

¶77

However, it is to be noted that the last of the dates of Section 6(1) declaration is

¶78

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶79

¶80

the publication in the newspaper concerned which is on 25.8.2011 and the period of two years therefrom for passing of the award as mandated under Section 11(1) of the old Act was only upto 20.1.2013. It is fairly stated by the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents that originally the awards were passed in these cases on 14.10.2014, under the old Act even though by then the New Act had come into force. Later revised awards have been passed under the New Act in the various dates given herein above. Therefore from the admitted materials, it can be seen that the period of limitation of two years as enshrined in Section 11A of the old Act is not fulfilled in the instant case as between the time period taken from the last date of Section 6(1) declaration notification and the date of award. But in the instant case, it is to be noted that though the said period had expired as early as on 24/08/2013 the petitioners challenged only at the belated stage by filing the writ petition on 28.1.2016. The 4^th respondent has passed revised awards under the New Act on various dates in March 2018, December 2017, February 2018 etc. as stated herein above, during the pendency of this W.P.(C). During all those times, petitioners have not raised any objection, by filing any interim application in this W.P.(C) to deal with such aspects. On the other hand, all the 13 petitioners except the 5^th petitioner has even subsequently accepted the compensation amounts granted to them under the revised award passed under

¶81

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶82

¶83

the New Act and even four of them have filed reference applications. All these crucial and relevant aspects have not been disclosed to this Court, at least by filing additional affidavits. Further petitioners have not challenged the said impugned action at any point of time prior to 28.1.2016 contending that the awards were passed after the lapse of the proceedings etc. Even the passing of the original awards has not been disclosed or challenged in this W.P.(C). Therefore the petitioners are barred by delay, latches, acquiescence and even estoppel from raising the present pleas. In view of the aforesaid aspects, their claims are stale due to latches, delay, acquiescence etc. and even they are estopped from making the present pleas. Therefore this court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners herein in respect of the said said prayers. As regards the 5^th respondent, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that since the said party has not received the compensation amount, the amount has been deposited before the court below concerned and that the amounts sanctioned under the old act has been deposited before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara on 14.2.2014 and further the amount sanctioned as per the revised award under the new Act before the land acquisition authorities concerned on 28.2.2014. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the 5^th petitioner to receive the said amounts under protest and in case the outer time limit of condonation of delay in filing reference

¶84

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

¶85

¶86

application under the new Act has not been over, it is for the petitioner to seek the provisions for reference application, but subject to the parameters relating to condonation of delay in that regard as prescribed under the New Act.

¶87

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.

¶88

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

sv.

W.P.(C)No.3595/2016

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶94

EXHIBIT P1 EXT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.3153 OF 2015 DATED 25/03/2015.

Ammini Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammini Amma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premakumari T.N Vs Union of India

C.G.Radhadevi Vs the State of Kerala

T.P.Sulaika Vs State of Kerala

Nazeer M.K. Vs the Thalassery Municipality

Philomina Abraham Alias Sisily Abraham Vs State

Malayora Highway Action Committee Vs State of Kerala