Allowed

Saji T.K., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2022WP(C)/1367/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition, setting aside the rejection of a reference application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. The court held the application was not time-barred and directed the Special Tahsildar to forward it to the District Collector despite the jurisdictional objection.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; rejection order (Ext.P3) set aside; Special Tahsildar directed to forward petitioner's Section 64 application to District Collector within two weeks.

Saji T.K., Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAJI.T.K., S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THOOMPIL HOUSE, MANJOOR POST, KOTTAYAM 686 603.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SRI.KOSHY GEORGE SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM 686 601.

¶12

3 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHADSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (RAILWAY), CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM 686 601.

¶13

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 proceedings of the third respondent – Special Tahsildar, through which, his request for reference of the Award with respect to the property acquired for the purposes of doubling of Railway Line between Mulanthuruthy – Chengannur has been rejected, saying that his application – preferred under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (for short 'Fair Compensation Act') - is time barred.

¶19

Sri.Jamaludheen K.M. - learned counsel for the petitioner, explains that the Award in question was admittedly settled on 04.09.2020 and its copy was received by his client only on 14.09.2020. He points out that his client had preferred the application for reference, under Section 64 of the “Fair Compensation Act”, on 16.10.2020 and therefore, that it is well within time, going by the statutory scheme and stipulations. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P3 be set aside and the competent Authority be directed to act as per Section 64 of the “Fair Compensation Act”, without any further delay.

¶20

In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader -

¶21

WP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

Smt.K.Amminikutty, pointed out that, as per Section 64(2)(b) of the “Fair Compensation Act”, the petitioner ought to have made his application for reference within a period of six weeks from the date on which notice from the Collector under Section 21 was received. She pointed out that the petitioner only has a case that he received the Award on 14.09.2020, but does not explain when the notice under Section 21 was received by him. She argued that this has great relevance in this case because, as per the aforementioned provision, it is the date of receipt of either the notice or the Award which will be the starting point of the period of limitation. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶24

I have evaluated the afore submissions on the touchstone of the various materials available on record.

¶25

It is indubitable that the Award was settled only on 04.09.2020. It is only thereafter can a notice under Section 21 be issued to the petitioner. Therefore, even assuming that this Court takes that date to be relevant one, the six week period would expire only on 16.10.2020, excluding it. Therefore, when the petitioner has admittedly preferred an application on 16.10.2020 - even if his version that he received the Award only on 14.09.2020 is discounted, I fail to

¶26

WP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021

¶27

¶28

understand how the said application could be seen to have been beyond time.

¶29

There is adscititious reason why this Court finds in favour of the petitioner because, during the relevant time, it is common knowledge that the entire country was reeling under the deleterious consequences of the Covid – 19 pandemic. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had been issuing orders time after time extending the periods of statutory limitation and I am certain that the benefit of the same would apply to the petitioner, particularly when the application made under Section 64 of the “Fair Compensation Act” is also a statutory one.

¶30

At this time, the learned Senior Government Pleader intervened to say that another reason why the petitioner's application cannot be considered is that it was preferred not before the District Collector, but before the Special Tahsildar.

¶31

I am afraid that I cannot find favour with this either, because if the application was not maintainable before the Special Tahsildar, he ought to have transmitted it to the District Collector, rather than have issued Ext.P3 saying that it is beyond time.

¶32

I am also persuaded to this view also because I notice

¶33

WP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

from Exts.P7 to P9, which are proceedings relating to other lands acquired, that in such cases, applications akin to the one made by the petitioner were accepted even after the period of limitation.

¶36

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P3; with a consequential direction to the third respondent - Special Tahsildar, to forward the application of the petitioner, preferred under Section 64 of the “Fair Compensation Act” to the second respondent - District Collector, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

On the application being received by the District Collector as above, he will consider it on its merits, de hors the objections of limitation and complete proceedings thereon as per law without any avoidable delay thereafter, but not later than two weeks therefrom.

¶38

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

stu

¶41

WP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1367/2021

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO. 09/2020 DATED 4.9.2020 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2020.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2020.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.12.2020.
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDIES.
Exhibit	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.649/2015/RD DATED 04/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22/06/2021 IN THE CASE OF SMT.SARADAMMA ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/05/2021.
Exhibit	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24/06/2021 IN THE CASE OF SMT.SARADAMMA ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/05/2021.
Exhibit	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23/06/2021 IN THE CASE OF SMT.LEELAMMA C.M. ALONG WITH INSTRUCTIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/05/2021.

¶46

WP(C) NO. 1367 OF 2021

¶47

¶48

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/10/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

Saji T.K., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji T.K., 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

M.C.Muralidharan Vs District Collector

Nagarajan Vs the Tahsildar (Survey)

Gopuran Associates Vs Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.

James K Joseph Vs State of Kerala

T. Mohanan Pillai, Vs State of Kerala

Salini Chandran Vs Manoj Kumar P.V.