Disposed

M.v.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2022WA/2349/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ appeal against an order directing execution of a sale deed for land acquisition compensation under the LARR Act, 2013. The Court also directed the respondents to provide way leave access to the petitioner as per policy.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of; directions given to comply with Way Leave requirements for providing access.

M.v.Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.No.2349 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WA NO. 2349 OF 2019

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17093/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶11

M.V.VARGHESE AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. MANI VARKEY, MADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, K. P. VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 20.

¶12

BY ADVS. T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.K.C.KIRAN SRI.M.DEVESH SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SRI.ROHIT NANDAKUMAR SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/REPONDENTS:

¶14

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

¶15

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.

¶16

3 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR L. A. NO.1, KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.

¶17

4 DEPUTY COLLECTOR L.A. KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030.

¶18

W.A.No.2349 of 2019

¶19

¶20

5 KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT LTD. 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 011.

¶21

6 DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016., REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER.

¶22

BY ADVS. SRI.JAFFER KHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.JAJU BABU,STANDING COUNSEL,KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.2349 of 2019

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 21st day of November, 2022

¶28

S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.

¶29

Before the writ court, writ petitioner/appellant sought for the following relief:

¶30

"Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order directing the respondents to refrain from taking possession of the land taken in [Ext.P1 and Ext.P2] belonging to the pet comprised in Sy.No.702/7 in Ernakulam Village by use of force or by such other means without the authority of law."

¶31

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:

¶32

2.1 Petitioner is the owner in possession of 55.5 cents (approximate of the landed

¶33

property) and out of the said extent of land, vide Ext.P1 notification dated 6-9-2013, the State expressed interest to acquire 1.31 Ares and urgency clause was to be invoked,

¶34

evident from Ext.P1.

¶35

2.2 For about an year, no proceedings based on Ext.P1 was taken by the respondents. Vide Ext.P2 dated 08-08-2014, the Special Tahsildar (L.A), No.1, Kochi Metro Rail Project, Ernakulam – 3rd respondent, expressed interest to purchase 3.01 Ares, out of the land holdings of the petitioner, wherein petitioner runs a lodging house,

¶36

in which there are 79 furnished rooms.

¶37

W.A.No.2349 of 2019

¶38

¶39

2.3. According to the petitioner, an inventory of the movables prepared by an Advocate commissoner with the help of an expert engineer in a suit numbered as O.S. 1075/21 of Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam reveals the value of the movables between Rs.81 Lakhs to Rs. 84 lakhs. According to him, the proposed acquisition or attempt to purchase the land of the petitioner would lead to loss of ingress and egress to the remaining holdings.

¶40

2.4. According to the petitioner, on 01-06-2015, the Speciqal Tahsildar (L.A), No.1, Kochi Metro Rail Project, Ernakulam & Deputy Colletor (L.A), Kochi Metrol Rail Project, Ernakulam – respondent Nos.3 &4, gave oral notice to the petioner to surrender land having an extent of 3.01 Ares.

¶41

2.5 It is submitted by the petitioner that petitioner expressed his difficulty in as much as there was no notice in writing, no attempt to pay amounts in advance before taking possession, to pay valaue of the movables & building and to give ingress and egress to the balance larger extent of land, etc.

¶42

2.6 It is contended by the petitioner that respondents 3 and 4 categorically stated that possession of the land would be taken by use of force at any rate. It is in this background the writ petition was filed.

¶43

Considering the averments and adverting to the rival submissions, vide judgement dated 24^th July, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.17093 of 2015, writ court ordered thus:

¶44

"3. Petitioner entered into an agreement with the District Collector,

¶45

W.A.No.2349 of 2019

¶46

¶47

Ernakulam. Accordingly, 80% of compensation was paid for 3.01 Ares. Petitioner's case is that an award should be passed in terms of Act 30/2013. it came into force with effect from 1.01.2014.

¶48

In the agreement itself it was agreed to award compensation in accordance with the relief and rehabilitation package to be implemented in terms of Act 30/2013.

¶49

There is no provision under the Act 30/2013, to pass an award based on negotiations or agreement. This Court in similar circumstances adopted a course directing the land owner to execute a sale deed and treating the sale deed as an award directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer fro the re-determination of the compensation in accordance with Sec.64 of the Act 30/2013. In such circumstances, petitioner shall execute a sale deed in terms of the agreement. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Officer shall take steps to refer the claim for redetermination of compensation under Sec.64 of the Act 30/2013 within a further period of two months thereon.

¶50

The Writ Petition is disposed as above.”

¶51

Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed.

¶52

When the matter came up on 14^th November, 2022, by inviting attention of this Court to the 'Policy on Way Leave' of Kochi Metro Rail Ltd., produced before us, Mr.K.Jaju Babu – learned Senior Counsel appearing for Kochi Metro Rail Project Ltd., - the 5^th respondent, submitted that as per the Policy on Way Leave, passage would be given to the land owner/appellant.

¶53

On this day, when the matter came up for further hearing, on instructions from the Kochi Metro Rail Project Ltd., Mr.K.Jaju Babu – learned Senior Counsel, submitted thus:

¶54

W.A.No.2349 of 2019

¶55

¶56

“As per the way leave policy a minimum of 1 meter(for pedestrian access) and maximum of 4 meter (for vehicular access) can be given, subject to payment of charges as per the policy. In this case, a maximum of 5 meter (combining both pedestrian and vehicular access) can be provided for vehicular access at the sought-eastern boundary of this property, subject to submission of application and payment of charges applicable for vehicular access, as per the policy.”

¶57

Submission of the learned counsel for Kochi Metro Rail Project Ltd. is placed on record.

¶58

According to the learned Senior Counsel for Kochi Metro Rail Project Ltd. for the purpose of Kochi Metro project, a passage of 5 meter (combining both pedestrian and vehicular access) would be provided at the south-eastern boundary of appellant's property.

¶59

Though, Mr.Vinod Ravindranath – learned counsel for appellant, submitted that as per the Commission's report, more than 5 meters were required for the pedestrian and vehicular access to the south-eastern boundary of the appellant's property, we are of the view that the Kochi Metro Rail Project Ltd., Ernakulam is bound by the provisions of Way Leave on KMRL land to provide passage/access to private houses and establishments etc. and that the same cannot be any deviation from the policy, and the same has to be made applicable to all persons whenever there is a major project. Accordinlgy, there would be a direction to the parties to comply with the requirements for granting the “Way Leave”.

¶60

W.A.No.2349 of 2019

¶61

¶62

10.However, we do not find any error in the judgment of the writ court regarding execution of sale deed, payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation

¶63

And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013, reference to be made etc., and thus, not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶64

With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.

¶65

Sd/- S.MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶66

smv

¶67

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶68

W.A.No.2349 of 2019

¶69

¶70

APPENDIX OF WA 2349/2019

¶71

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.08.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.17093/2015. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 21.10.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.17093/2015. ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.10.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE 4: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.10.2015.

M.v.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Varghese 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

Usha.C Vs Indane, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

D.Ajayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Prasoon Sunny Vs State of Kerala

K.Padmanabhan Vs Kerala State Library Council

Union of India Vs Smt.Yesodha

The Union of India Vs a.v.Devaki