Disposed

Pathumma Beevi S, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC4 Jan 2019WP(C)/57/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that respondents must pay statutory interest at 15% p.a. from the second year onwards until actual payment. It directed the Special Tahasildar to calculate and disburse the due amount within two months without insisting on waivers. Previously, a pending Writ Petition No. 57 of 2019 was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Special Tahasildar to calculate statutory interest at 15% p.a. from the second year onwards and disburse due amounts within two months.

Pathumma Beevi S, 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

FRIDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 57 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 PATHUMMA BEEVI S, AGED 65 YEARS W/O LATE ABDUL REHUMAN, PARUTHI POYKAYIL, CHADAYAMANGALAM MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHADAYAMANGALAM.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM-691 534.

¶8

2 ANEESH REHUMAN, S/O LATE ABDUL REHUMAN, PARUTHI POYKAYIL, CHADAYAMANGALAM MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM -691 534.

¶9

3 ANEESHYA REHUMAN, D/O LATE ABDUL REHUMAN, PARUTHI POYKAYIL, CHADAYAMANGALAM MURI, CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM -691 534.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691013.

¶13

2 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR(L.A.II) KOLLAM, MINI CIVIL STATION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM-691 501.

¶14

3 THE SECRETARY CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHADAYAMANGALAM.P.O, KOLLAM-691 534.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

==================

¶20

W.P.(C).No. 57 of 2019

¶21

==================

¶22

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2019

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

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

¶25

“(a) direct the respondents to disburse the statutory interest of Rs. 81,178/- to the petitioner immediately.

¶26

(b) pass any other writ or order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Heard Sri.G.Bhagavat Singh, learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-3 (Chadayamangalam Grama Panchayat) will stand dispensed with.

¶29

This Court as per Ext.P-2 judgment dated 30.1.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 36440/2017 filed by the petitioners herein had directed the 3^rd respondent Chadayamangalam Grama Panchayat to make available the requisite funds for payment of the due amounts to the petitioners in the land acquisition proceedings within two months and thereafter respondents 1 and 2 were directed to disburse the due amounts to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter.

¶30

According to the petitioners, the entire amounts due to

¶31

W.P.(C).57/19 - : 3 :-

¶32

the petitioners have not been duly sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioners, as can be seen from Ext.P-1 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition-II, Kollam, who is the notified land acquisition officer in this case and it is stated that 15% interest has been granted only upto 29.2.2016 (date of award) and further that 15% amounts for the period beyond 29.2.2016 upto 27.4.2018 (date of payment of the amounts) has not been granted to the petitioners so far. It is further pointed out that the petitioners could reliably learn that there are certain instructions issued by the 1^st respondent State Government that the claimants should not be given statutory interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and 15% p.a. for second year onwards for consideration of the Sec.28A applications and that presumably it is on the basis of such unlawful directions issued by the respondent State authorities concerned that 15% interest has been denied to the petitioners for the period from 29.2.2016 (date of award) upto 27.4.2018 (date of actual payment). This Court has held in a catena of rulings that the stand of the respondent State authorities in insisting that the claimants should forego and waive their statutory entitlement of interest @ 9% p.a for the first year and @ 15% p.a. from the second year onwards , etc. in order to facilitate

¶33

W.P.(C).57/19 - : 4 :-

¶34

decision on their Sec.28A application is illegal and ultra vires and such impugned conditions have been quashed by this Court and the respondents State authorities have been directed to consider and pass orders on the Sec.28A application in accordance with law, but without insisting on such condition that the claimant should forego the statutory interest, etc. The relevant portion of the calculation statement given in Ext.P-1 issued by the 2^nd respondent Land Acquisition Officer reads as follows:

¶35

District & Village Taluk Sy.No. Extent Name of registered holder of occupie. Kollam Kottarakkara 259/13 10.50 Ares Abdul Khader Abdul Rehman Chadayamangalam (v) (a) Amount of compensation already paid 26250.63 (b) Balance amount to be paid on Redetermination 250676.85 (iv) The persons to whom the compensation is due : Smt.Pathumma Beevi & Others. 9% interest for Rs. 250676.85 From 20.09.2001 to 19.09.2002 (one year) 22560.91 15% interest for Rs. 250676.85/- 505611.77 From 20.09.2002 to 29.02.2016 (4908 days) Total:778849.53 Rounded to:778850/=========”

¶36

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered

¶37

and declared that in case the respondents have not paid statutory interest @ 15% p.a. for the periods beyond the date of award upto the

¶38

W.P.(C).57/19 - : 5 :-

¶39

actual payment, then the same is illegal and ultra vires and the respondents are legally obliged to pay the statutory interest in terms of mandatory provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, which mandate that 15% interest for the second year onwards should be paid upto the date of actual payment/date of deposit, as the case may be.

¶40

It is further ordered that the 2^nd respondent will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as the 3^rd respondent and will calculate statutory interest @15% p.a. for the periods beyond the date of award (29.2.2016) upto the date of actual payment/ date of deposit as the case may be and then should disburse such due amounts to the petitioners without any further delay. In that regard the 2^nd respondent will ensure that calculation statement is prepared and the same is given to the 3^rd respondent. Upon receipt of the calculation statement, the 3^rd respondent will ensure that due funds are made available to the 2^nd respondent for ensuring payment of such balance due amounts to the petitioners without any further delay. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the respondents without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this

¶41

W.P.(C).57/19 - : 6 :-

¶42

judgment.

¶43

The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat for necessary information, at the cost of the petitioners.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶45

sdk+

¶46

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶47

W.P.(C).57/19

¶48

: 7 :-

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NIL DATED PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-01-2018 IN W.P.C.NO.36440 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27-11-2018 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-11-2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Pathumma Beevi S, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathumma Beevi S, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adinarayana Swamy Vs the Sub Registrar

Annie Anotny Vs the District Collector

Guru Swamy Vs State of Kerala

Pathumma Beevi S. Vs the District Collector

K.Bahuleyan Nair@Karakulam Babu Vs State of Kerala

Manju Abraham Vs State of Kerala