Disposed

Sojan Jacob @ Sojan v. District Collector

Kerala HC9 Mar 2022WP(C)/956/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a writ petition regarding compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act. The petitioner challenged the deposit of undisputed compensation in the District Court by the Special Tahsildar. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar for originals, produce them in District Court, and directed the District Court to release funds if title was satisfac

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach 2nd respondent for originals, produce in District Court; District Court directed to release compensation if title satisfactory and no objections raised.

Sojan Jacob @ Sojan Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 956 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

SOJAN JACOB @ SOJAN, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. CHACKO, KUNNATH HOUSE, PANTHALAM PADAM,
ALATHOOR TALUK, PANNIANKARA P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678686.

¶6

BY ADVS.
V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
N.RAJESH
GOPAKUMAR P.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD – 678001.

¶9

2 SPECIAL THAHASILDAR (L.A) OFFICE OF SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KINFRA, KANJIKKODE, PALAKKAD - 678621.

¶10

SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.P

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 956/22

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P2 notice issued by the 2 nd respondent – Special Tahsildar, showing that the amount of Rs.2,45,53,965/-, determined by the said Authority as being compensation with respect to the property acquired from him, has been deposited before the competent District Court under the provisions of Section 77 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Fair Compensation Act' for short).

¶16

2 . Sri.V.Rajendran – learned counsel for the petitioner , submitted that, going by Section 77(2) of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’, the Special Tahsildar could not have deposited the amount before the District Court when there were no disputes raised by any person with respect to its disbursement. He, therefore, prayed that either the District Court be directed to return the money to the 2 nd respondent, or that said Court be ordered to release the same to him, when the reference is next listed for consideration,

¶17

WPC 956/22

¶18

¶19

namely on 19.03.2022.

¶20

3 . In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader –

¶21

Smt.Mable C. Kurian, submitted that the deposit under Section 77(2) of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ was made by the 2 nd respondent because the original documents with respect to the property had not been produced by the petitioner at the time when adjudication under Section 3G of the National Highways Act (‘NH Act for short) was completed. She, however, conceded that title documents were thereafter produced by the petitioner; but that by then the Award had been settled. She, therefore, added that she will not stand in the way of apposite orders being issued by this Court to the learned District Court.

¶22

4 . In reply, Sri.V.Rajendran submitted that the afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader are not accurate because, as is evident from Ext.P4, the original documents were produced by his client before the 2 nd respondent on 20.12.2021. However, to a pointed question from this Court, he admitted that this appears to be after the Award had been finalised.

¶23

¶24

WPC 956/22

¶25

5 . When I consider the afore submissions and examine

¶26

Ext.P1 - which is the Award in question, it is clear that the 2 nd respondent has recorded that the petitioner has not produced the original documents with respect to an extent of 0.7596 hectares of land and therefore, that he is left without any other option but to deposit it before the competent District Court.

¶27

6 . I must say that, going by Section 77(2) of the ‘Fair Compensation Act’ this may not be the appropriate action, but since it has already been done, I do not think that it will be justified for this Court to attempt to set the said action in reverse, solely for it to be regularised. On the contrary, I am of the view that it will be better, even for the petitioner, that the learned District Court is directed to release the amount to him, if

¶28

there are no objections raised by any other person.

¶29

Resultantly and since the reference is stated to be listed on 19.03.2022, I order this Writ Petition in the following manner:

¶30

a ) The petitioner is directed to approach the 2 nd

¶31

respondent – Special Tahsildar within a period of one week from today; in which event, the original of the documents, as

¶32

¶33

WPC 956/22

¶34

mentioned in Ext.P4, will be returned to him by the said Authority on proper receipt.

¶35

b ) The petitioner will produce the original documents

¶36

before the District Court and the said Court will evaluate the

¶37

same to verify his title over the property in his favour.

¶38

c ) If the title of the petitioner is found satisfactory by the learned District Court and if there are no objections raised with respect to the amounts under the Award, said Court will

¶39

forthwith issue orders releasing the same in his favour.

¶40

Needless to say, the afore directions and observations are confined to the amounts covered by Ext.P2 and the statutory

¶41

liberty of the petitioner to seek an enhancement of the same, through the course of law, is left open.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

RR

¶44

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶45

WPC 956/22

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 956/2022

¶48

`PETITION`	`ER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF RECE` `PETITIONER BY THE` `17.09.21.`	`IPT ISSUED TO THE` `2ND RESPONDENT ON`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTI` `2ND RESPONDENT TO` `FORM 2(A) BEARING` `27.11.21.`	`CE OF AWARD ISSUED BY` `THE PETITIONER UNDER` `NO.A.312/13(58) DATED`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTI` `DATED 16.11.2021` `RESPONDENT TO THE`	`CE NO.A/312/13/(58)` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF PETI` `PETITIONER BEFORE` `20.12.21.`	`TION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF PETI` `PETITIONER BEFORE` `4.1.22.`	`TION SUBMITTED BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON`

¶49

RESPONDENTS’ EXTS:

¶50

EXHIBIT R1

Sojan Jacob @ Sojan v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sojan Jacob @ Sojan v. District Collector

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

Siddick P.A Vs the District Collector

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., Vs State Bank of India

Mohan R, Vs Tahsildar

Ashique Ali Vs State of Kerala

A.A. Pareed, Vs State of Kerala

Sarangadharan Vs Village Officer