Dismissed

Abdul Salim v. Thajudeen M.H.

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022WA/827/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal upheld the Single Judge's order directing the District Collector to act under Section 64 of the LARR Act 2013 upon receiving reference applications disputing land measurement in a land acquisition case. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the Single Judge directing the authorities to act under Section 64 of the Act 2013 was affirmed.

Abdul Salim Vs Thajudeen M.H. — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

¶2

-1-

¶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

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶9

WA NO. 827 OF 2022

¶10

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3480/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶11

KERALA

¶12

APPELLANT/S:

¶13

ABDUL SALIM AGED 55 YEARS S/O.ABDUL SAMAD, RESIDING AT KADAVIL PADINJATTETHIL, MYLAKKADU CHERRY, MYLAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 571.

¶14

BY ADV A.JANI

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 THAJUDEEN M.H. AGED 69 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, RESIDING AT KADAVIL VEEDU, ITHIKKARA, MYLAKKAD P.O., ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 571 (WRIT PETITIONER).

¶17

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013 (FIRST RESPONDENT).

¶18

3 AUTHORISED OFFICER/DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION NATIONAL HIGHWAYS), COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOLLAM - 691 013 (SECOND RESPONDENT).

¶19

4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS), VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 010 (THIRD RESPONDENT).

¶20

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

¶21

-2-

¶22

5 NAJEEM K.A. AGED 52 YEARS S/O.KOCHASAN, MACHU VEEDU (HASANISA), ITHIKKARA, MYLAKKADU P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571 (FIFTH RESPONDENT).

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SRI. TEK CHAND SR GP

¶25

SRI.M. RAJESH SRI.G. KRISHNAKUMAR(MARANAD)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶27

FOLLOWING:

¶28

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

-3-

J U D G M E N T

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The 4^th respondent in W. P. (C) No. 3480 of 2022 has filed the appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.03.2022 whereby the writ petition was disposed of directing the District Collector, Kollam, the 1^st respondent therein, to act as per Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2013), taking note of Exts. P2 and P3 applications filed by the writ petitioner / 1^st respondent in the appeal and make the requisite deposit of the award amount before the competent court without any avoidable delay.

¶33

Further, liberty is granted to the rival parties to approach the competent court with respect to the amount to be deposited and for which purpose all their contentions are left open.

¶34

Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

¶35

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

¶36

-4-

¶37

The properties of the writ petitioner as well as the appellant herein and others were acquired for development of National Highway

¶38

66 based on a notification issued under the Act 2013. According to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner had objected to the demarcation process and claimed compensation for his entire 04.03 ares of property, however he came to know that the 2^nd respondent had passed award No. 454/2020 in the name of the appellant and award No. 511/2020 in the name of one Najeem K. A., who is the 5^th respondent in the appeal as well as in the writ petition, by including the land belonging to the writ petitioner.

¶39

Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, the petitioner is the sole person entitled to get the entire compensation for the land and building covered by the award. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that appellant as well as the 5^th respondent are tenant and a trespasser respectively, who are not entitled to get any compensation for the land and building owned by the writ petitioner.

¶40

It was thereupon that applications were filed by the writ petitioner under Section 64 of Act 2013 seeking reference of the issue raised by the writ petitioner in regard to the measurement of the

¶41

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

¶42

-5-

¶43

property to the competent civil court, however no action was taken and

¶44

being aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed.

¶45

Appellant and the 5^th respondent have filed counter affidavits before the writ court stating that they are owners of the property acquired by virtue of the title deeds held by them and refuted the claim raised by the writ petitioner in respect of the entire property before the District Collector as well as in the writ petition.

¶46

Before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that though the award has been settled, the disbursement of amount under it has been deferred taking note of the dispute between the petitioner and appellant and the 5^th respondent.

¶47

From the judgment, we find that learned counsel for the appellant, who was the 4^th respondent in the writ petition, submitted that necessary direction may be issued to the authority for reference under the provisions of Section 64 of Act 2013. It was in the aforesaid background, directions were issued to the District Collector, Kollam to

¶48

consider the applications submitted by the writ petitioner in accordance with Section 64 of Act 2013.

¶49

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

¶50

-6-

¶51

It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment the writ petition is filed.

¶52

We have heard Sri. Jani A., learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State, Sri. M. Rajesh, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr. G. Krishna Kumar (Maranad), learned counsel for the 5^th respondent and perused the pleadings and material on record.

¶53

The contention advanced by the appellant is that the appellant has accepted the award passed by the competent authority under Act 2013 and he has not made any reference application under Section 64 of the said Act. However from the contentions put forth by the writ petitioner and Exts. P2 and P3 reference applications submitted by the writ petitioner, it is clear that he is disputing the measurement of the property acquired by the National Highways Authority.

¶54

Section 64 of the Act 2013 is intended to tackle any dispute arising in the acquisition and among others the measurement is also an aspect to seek reference, which reads thus:-

¶55

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

¶56

-7-

¶57

“ 64. Reference to Authority .-(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested:

¶58

Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority:

¶59

Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.

¶60

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

¶61

Provided that every such application shall be made--

¶62

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;

¶63

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six

¶64

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

¶65

-8-

¶66

months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire:

¶67

Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.”

¶68

Therefore it is categoric and clear that whenever a dispute is raised by any person with respect to the measurement by filing an application under Section 64 of Act 2013, the Collector has to take a decision in the application, in accordance with law, as to whether the matter can be referred to the competent court for a decision.

¶69

Therefore it can be seen that the directions were issued by the learned Single Judge on the basis of applications submitted by the writ petitioner before the Collector, and therefore, necessarily, the Collector has to discharge his statutory duties, in accordance with law. Moreover the appellant has agreed before the writ court that he has no objection in the writ court adopting such a course of action.

¶70

Viewed in that manner, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has not made out any case for interference with the judgment

¶71

W. A. No. 827 of 2022

¶72

-9-

¶73

of the learned Single Judge there being no jurisdictional error or other

¶74

legal infirmities justifying us to do so in an intra court appeal.

¶75

Needless to say, appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶76

Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶79

¶80

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE

Abdul Salim v. Thajudeen M.H.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Salim v. Thajudeen M.H.

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

Bar Council of Kerala, Vs P.Prakash

The Parent Teacher Association Vs the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited

M.Hassankannu, Vs the Secretary, Poovar Grama Panchayat

Jacob Joseph Vs State of Kerala

The Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Kerala Lok Ayukta

Sureshan Kotterian Vs State of Kerala