Writ petition by children of a deceased landholder seeking compensation for acquired property after civil courts declared their partial title and possession. Court directed Collector to reassess claim.
Set aside orders rejecting compensation claim; direct District Collector to reconsider claim within three months after hearing petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014
PETITIONERS:
VILASINI, AGED 72 YEARS, 1 W/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, KURUPPASSERIL, PANDARAPARAMBIL, PONJIKKARA, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM. ASHOKAN, AGED 49 YEARS, 2 S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, KURUPPASSERIL, PANDARAPARAMBIL, PONJIKKARA, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM. HARIKESAN, AGED 45 YEARS, 3 S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, KURUPPASSERIL, PANDARAPARAMBIL, PONJIKKARA, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM. ASHA, AGED 39 YEARS, 4 D/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, KURUPPASSERIL, PANDARAPARAMBIL, PONJIKKARA, MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM.
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 2
BY ADVS. SRI.N.RATHEESH SMT.SUMA RATHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
THE STATE OF KERALA, 1 REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 021.
TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI2 682 011.
ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED
GOSHREE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CHATHIATH ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI - 682012, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADDL.R3
ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 22.1.14 IN I.A.878/14
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 3
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
W.P.(Civil). No.1029 of 2014
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2021 JUDGMENT
Petitioners 2 to 6 are the children of late
K.K.Vasudevan, who was assigned kudikidappu right
for an extent of 3.5 cents of land comprised in
Survey Nos.845/1 & 373/1 Mulavukad Village. It is
contended that late Sri.K.K.Vasudevan has
constructed a house in the said property by availing loan and after the death of Sri.K.K.Vasudevan, petitioners were residing in the said property.
Later, the above said property was notified for acquisition for the Goshree Development Project for
the construction of bridges in between Ernakulam and
Vypin. Notice under Section 9(3) of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 was served on the petitioners
by the Special Tahasildar (LA) G.C.D.A. Even though,
the petitioners furnished all the documents
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 4
regarding the ownership and possession of the property the compensation claim was rejected holding that the property is a puramboke land and the petitioners have title only over half a cent of land and declined to grant any compensation for the land acquired. Thereafter, the respondent took steps to evict the petitioners from the said land as per the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and in the said circumstance, the petitioners filed O.S.No.240 of 2001 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, seeking a declaration of title over the entire property. The said suit was allowed as per Ext.P2 judgment dated
20.6.2013. Challenging Ext.P2 judgment the Government preferred appeal and the appellate court remitted the matter for fresh disposal. Thereafter, the Sub Court, Ernakulam again considered O.S.No.240 of 2001 and decreed the suit again as per judgment dated 28.11.2006. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 judgment, the Government preferred appeal as A.S.No.171 of 2007 and the appellate court as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 10.7.2008 modified Ext.P3 judgment of the trial
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 5
court holding that petitioners are in possession of 3 cents of property in Survey No.845 included in the plaint schedule and that petitioners are owners in possession and enjoyment of half a cent of property in Survey No.373/1. As per the declaration by the appellate court by Ext.P4 judgment, petitioners have title over half a cent of land in Survey No.373/1 and possession over the rest 3 cents of land. Challenging the said decision contained in Ext.P4, an appeal has been preferred as RSA No.673 of 2011, which is stated to be pending.
1st petitioner preferred a representation dated
17.5.2007 requesting to consider the grant of
compensation based on the declaration made in Ext.P3
judgment. As Ext.P5 representation was not considered, the 1st petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C)21513/2007. While the said writ
petition was pending consideration, the appellate court judgment evidenced by Ext.P4 was pronounced,
and therefore, W.P.(C) No.21513 of 2007 was disposed
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 6
of by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment granting liberty to the 1st petitioner to pursue her remedy for getting compensation for half a cent of land in
Survey No.373/1 of Mulavukad Village which was acquired for Goshree Development Project. Thereafter, Ext.P7 representation dated 9.11.2011
was submitted before the 1st respondent. Along with Ext.P7, Ext.P8 valuation report prepared by KITCO at the time of acquisition of the property was also produced. However, Ext.P7 representation was rejected by the 1st respondent and the same was communicated vide Ext.P9 intimating that at the time of acquisition, the petitioner did not produce any document to prove the ownership of the land. The petitioners were also issued with Ext.P10 report of
the Special Tahasildar which was relied on for issuing Ext. P9, wherein it is mentioned that the acquisition proceedings are already complete and it
is not possible to restart the proceedings for
acquisition and it is not practical to grant compensation for the acquired property and building.
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 7
years, no amount was paid to them as compensation.
The petitioners have been thrown out of their property leaving them to live at the mercy of relatives and well-wishers. The petitioners belong
to the traditional fishermen community and are now
living in a very difficult state of affairs. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner is now in an orphanage and the petitioners are struggling as displacement from their property without granting
any compensation has put them to serious financial difficulty.
petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to assess compensation in respect of the acquired property of the petitioners in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments and also taking into consideration Ext.P8 valuation report and to
disburse them compensation amount without any delay.
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 8
of the 1st respondent contending among other things
that no documents have been produced by the petitioners at the time of acquisition and therefore, they are not entitled to any
compensation.
before this Court on 5.8.2019, this Court issued a direction to the 1st respondent to calculate the compensation amount payable to the petitioners and file a report before this Court. In obedience to the
said direction, a report was submitted along with a memo dated 23.10.2019 wherein the 1st respondent has reported that the petitioners are eligible for getting Rs.40,481/- as compensation for the land acquired from them.
appearing for the petitioners as well as Smt.Sudha Devi, the learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and also
Advocate Varghese K Paul appearing for the Addl. 3rd respondent.
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 9
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 10
by the competent Civil Court that the petitioners are in possession of 3 cents of property in Survey No.845 and also owners in possession and enjoyment of half a cent of land in Survey No.373/1. It is only after the said declaration by the competent Civil Court and also the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment that the petitioners have approached the 1st respondent District Collector seeking compensation for the land already acquired from them. In view of the declaration given by the Civil Court regarding possession and ownership of the land as mentioned above, it was not proper on the part of the 1st respondent District Collector, to reject the request of the petitioners as per Ext.P9.
that no person can be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. In the present case, the property of the petitioners has been acquired
without granting any compensation legally due to
them which will go against the mandate of Article
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 11
300A of the Constitution of India. Further, the reason stated in Ext.P9 for rejecting the request made by the petitioners for compensation is also without any basis. The authorities ought to have taken note of the fact that the property has been taken over almost 20 years back without complying with the procedure as provided in the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the same, I feel that the 1st respondent District Collector, Ernakulam, will have to reconsider Ext.P7 representation afresh after taking into consideration all the relevant documents including Ext. P3 and P4 judgment and Ext.P8 valuation report and take a decision on the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation for the property acquired from them. To facilitate the said process, I set aside Ext.P9 order bearing No.JSP/119/11 dated 2.5.2012 issued by the District Collector, Ernakulam, and also Ext. P10 communication dated 14.11.2011 bearing No. B 472/2011 issued by the Special Tahsildar(LA)G.C.D.A.
The petitioners may produce before the 1st
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 12
respondent District Collector all the relevant documents in support of their claim for grant of compensation along with a certified copy of the judgment, within a period of three weeks from today. On receipt of the same, the 1st respondent District Collector is directed to re-consider Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioners and take a decision on the claim of the petitioners, in the
light of Exts.P3 and P4 judgments and P8 valuation report prepared by KITCO and any other relevant documents submitted by the petitioners, and take a final decision in the matter for grant of compensation within a period of three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or their representatives. This Court would hope and trust that the District Collector, Ernakulam will bestow his personal attention to this matter and take a proactive step to have a quietus to the whole issue, in view of the contention of the petitioners that they are now living in acute penury and that the property has been taken over from them
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 13
almost 20 years back without granting any
compensation.
With these observations and directions, the above writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE
pm
WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2014 14
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1029/2014
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 8.4.2002 IN O.S.NO.240/2002 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.6.2013 IN O.S.NO.240/2002 OF THE SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2006 IN O.S.NO.240/2001 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.7.2008 IN A.S.NO.171/2007 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.5.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.5.2011 IN WP[C]NO.21513/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 1.11.2001.
EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.11.2011 OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Collector ought to reconsider the petitioners' compensation claim in light of civil court declarations establishing their possession and ownership.
Whether the rejection of compensation due to lack of documentary proof at the time of acquisition was legal after subsequent court decrees.
Whether the petitioners, whose property was acquired without compensation for nearly two decades, are entitled to a fresh determination of their claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VILASINI
ASHOKAN
HARIKESAN
ASHA
KRISHNAKUMAR
ANIL KUMAR
VIJU ABRAHAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
