Allowed

Dr. Valsan P. Kurian, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC11 Feb 2019WP(C)/3969/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court directed the District Collector and Special Tahsildar to expedite the petitioner's application for referring his claim for enhanced land acquisition compensation to the competent Reference Court under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent authority to consider the reference application without delay and pass orders referring the claim for enhanced compensation to the competent forum within six weeks.

Dr. Valsan P. Kurian, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 22ND MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3969 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

DR. VALSAN P. KURIAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O KURIAN P.I., PADINJAREKARAYIL, NEAR CHAMPAKKARA BRIDGE, THYKOODAM, KOCHI-682019.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SHRI.MATHEW C.T

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030.

¶11

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), N.H. NO.III (KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD.), VYTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682019.

¶12

3 KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD.,

¶13

REVENUE TOWER, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-COCHIN682011, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR R3

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)No.3969/2019

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

W.P.(C)No.3969 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 11^th day of February, 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The main prayer in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:

¶24

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order directing the respondents 1 & 2 to consider and take action on Exhibits P4 & P4(a) (the reference applications Under Section 64 of the Central Act 30/2013) pending before them by referring the award to the Reference Court without any further delay.”

¶25

Heard Sri. Babu Cheurkara, the learned counsel appearing for

¶26

the petitioner, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. M.U. Vijayalakshmi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for R3.

¶27

According to the petitioner, his properties have been acquired by the 2^nd respondent on the basis of the request of the 3^rd respondent in terms of the provisions contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013) and that Ext.P3 notice dated 29.8.2018 is the award notice in Form No.9 issued under Rule 21(7) intimating about the passing of the award. That the petitioner has accepted the award and the compensation thereunder under protest and has sought that his claim for enhanced compensation should be adjudicated under Section 64 of the new

¶28

W.P.(C)No.3969/2019

¶29

¶30

Act for which he has submitted Ext.P4 application on 19.1.2019 for such reference to the reference authority as envisaged under that Section.

¶31

Taking note of the facts and circumstances as disclosed in this writ petition, it is ordered that the competent authority among respondents 1 and 2 will take up the reference request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 application without any further delay and, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will pass orders thereon on the request of the petitioner for referring his claim for enhanced compensation before the competent forum in terms of Section 64 of the new Act without much delay preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. In the above said process, competent authority among respondents 1 and 2 should also bear in mind the provisions contained in the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 64, which now exclusively confers power on the Collector to entertain an application even after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, but within a further period of one year, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period prescribed in the 1^st proviso. If the petitioner has a case that the delay, if any, is to be condoned and that there was sufficient grounds for that, the petitioner may file an appropriate application along with an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances which led to the delay in question. So also the respondents will take into consideration the plea made by the petitioner that notification constituting

¶32

W.P.(C)No.3969/2019

¶33

¶34

the competent forum under Section 64 was issued by the State Government belatedly and that therefore, the period of limitation should be counted only from the date of issuance of such notification issued by the respondent State Government constituting the District Court concerned as the competent forum under Section 64 for adjudicating their reference claim and so also the matters concerning condonation of delay as envisaged in the 2^nd proviso to sub section (2) of Section 64 should also be considered and evaluated by the competent authority among respondents 1 and 2 while passing orders as aforestated.

¶35

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd

W.P.(C)No.3969/2019