Dismissed

Naushad v. the District Collector

Kerala HC4 Aug 2023WP(C)/569/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a land owner challenging the rejection of his compensation claim for land acquired by the Kochi Metro Rail Project. The Court held that since the petitioner's title was extinguished due to lack of mutation of prior sales, he could not claim compensation for the remaining balance, deeming the claim fraudulent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order Ext.P15 holding that compensation is denied stands affirmed.

Naushad Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

NAUSHAD

¶7

S/O.SAINUDHEEN, SRAMBICKAL, NJALAKOM KARA,
KALAMASSERY, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-31.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
SMT.DRISYA SURENDRAN
SMT.N.M.SHEENA DAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030.

¶12

2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA-2 KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECTS, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030.

¶13

3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR ALUVA TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA- 683101.

¶14

4 MEETHIAN

¶15

S/O.NAINA, CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE, EDATHALA KARA,
ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, PIN 683561.

¶16

ADDL.R5 RABIA

¶17

W/O.MEETHIYAN, CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE, PENGATTUSSERY,
ERUMATHALA.P.O., PIN -683 112.

¶18

ADDL.R6 AYSHA BEEVI

¶19

D/O.MEETHIYAN, CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE, PENGATTUSSERY,
ERUMATHALA.P.O., PIN -683 112.

¶20

ADDL.R7 ASHRAF

¶21

S/O.MEETHIYAN, CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE, PENGATTUSSERY,
ERUMATHALA.P.O., PIN -683 112.

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶24

ADDL.R8ABDUL SALAM

¶25

S/O.MEETHIYAN, CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE, PENGATTUSSERY,
ERUMATHALA.P.O., PINN -683 112.

¶26

(ADDITIONAL R5 TO R8 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER
DATED11/02/2014 IN I.A 1818/14

¶27

BY ADVS.
KUM.T.S.SAUMYA

¶28

SRI.JUSTIN JACOB – SR. GP

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶30

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶31

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Petitioner claiming to be the owner of 5 cents of land by virtue of sale deed dated 19.02.2013 bearing No.661/2013 out of Survey No.411/8 through instant writ petition has challenged the order Ext.P15 of the Tahsildar denying him the compensation on the ground that the possession of the petitioner was excess than the ownership. There was notification under Section 4 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of various parcels of land including 411/8 measuring .2560 hectors. The aforementioned notification was followed by notification under Section 9 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act on 18.03.2013 Ext.P7. Petitioner submitted a claim before the Tahsildar for claiming compensation of the land in possession ie., in excess of the possession as per mutation Ext.P4 which has been rejected. It is contended that after having taken over land to the extent of 2.14 Ares from the possession of the petitioner without objection the same was used for construction of the Muttom Maintenance Yard of Kcohi Metro Railway but no compensation was awarded.

¶34

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶35

¶36

Once the possession was taken area more than the one reflected in the ownership as per the sale deed, compensation was liable to be paid to the petitioner. Thus the order is wholly erroneous and illegal. Tahsildar has also not examined the document attached to writ petition ie., possession certificate, mutation and the sale deed.

¶37

On the other hand, learned State Counsel argued that order Ext.P15 is perfectly legal and justified in as much as that the land to be acquired as per the notification was 31.9216 hectors comprising of various survey numbers for Muttom Maintenance Yard of Kochi Metro Rail Project. Land for Muttom Yard acquired was 25.60 Ares comprised in Re-survey No.411/8 Block No.34 Aluva West Village. Corresponding old Survey number was 359/3. The entire property involved in Re-survey No.411/8 Old Survey No.359/3 belonged to the 4^th respondent, Sri.Meethian, S/o.Naina on the basis of the documents of 1950 and 1980. 4^th respondent sold entire property held by him to Smt.Vanaja kuamari in 1990 as per Document No.1039/1990. Out of these land, Smt.Vanaja Kumari sold 29 cents to one Sri.Ismail, 29 cents to one Kareena.

¶38

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶39

¶40

They together sold the entire 58 cents to the petitioner against Document No.213/2006. Later in 2008, petitioner sold the entire land held by him in Survey No.411/8 to one Sri.Thomas Varghese vide Document bearing No.1418/2008 which was mutated in favour of the latter against Thandapper No.18517. When the process of implementation of the Survey Records was done, it was found that the old survey number 359/3 had an area of 23.46 Ares ie., 58 cents in new Survey No.411/8 with an area of 25.60 Ares ie., 63.257 cents. In the subsequent transactions of the property the area recorded was 23.46 Ares and mutation was effected accordingly. The original Thandapper of 4192 against Re-survey No.411/8 continued to have a balance of 2.14 Ares after 23.46 Ares. When the acquisition procedure started, petitioner vide Ext.P1 alleged to have purchased 2.14 Ares of land left in Original Thandapper No.4192 from the 4^th respondent and claimed the compensation for the same. Special Tahsildar – respondent No.2 on acquiring knowledge of Ext.P1 document created with an intention to defraud the State, sent the communication to

¶41

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶42

¶43

Additional Tahsildar to cancel the mutation and possession also for issuance of non-attachment certificate. 3^rd respondent after conducting due enquiry and hearing the petitioner, cancelled mutation in favour of the petitioner and possession. Nonattachment certificate of 2.14 Ares of land vide Ext.P15 proceedings was issued. It is on that account the compensation has been denied to the petitioner.

¶44

4^th respondent, Sri.Meethian sold the entire property 23.46 Ares in old Survey No.359/3 by various documents referred to above to Smt. Vanajakumari. The property sold to Smt. Vanaja Kumari was held briefly by the petitioner until he sold it to one Thomas Varghese vide Document No.1418/2008. Petitioner was served with notices under Land Acquisition Act, not because he held the land in Re-Survey No.411/8 but because the transfer of the property in favour of Sri.Thomas Varghese was not mutated in favour of the latter and the Village records continued to show the name of the petitioner as the land owner. The compensation package involved in the acquisition of land for Kochi Metro Rail

¶45

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶46

¶47

Project was huge. Land owners were given Rs.1,02,000/- (Rupees one lakh two thousand only) per cent towards land value for the

¶48

wet land and two (2) cents of land in the Metro Village for those who lose 1 to 10 cents of wet land.

¶49

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶50

The aforementioned stand taken in the counter affidavit

¶51

has not been refuted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder alleging excess possession of the land in the absence of any ownership. Notice by land acquisition officer was only sent on account of the fact that the petitioner was found to be in possession of the area to some extent at the behest of Smt.Vanajakumari but had parted with the ownership to Sri.Thomas Varghese. The said transfer was not mutated in the name of Sri.Thomas Varghese but records showed ownership of the petitioner. No document was on record to show that the compensation of 5 cents of land owned by the petitioner was not paid as deduction of TDS was challenged by various land owners

¶52

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶53

¶54

including the petitioner in this Court vide W.P.(C)No.11455/2013 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 03.05.2013. 4^th respondent after selling the property in 1990 did not have any possession. The original Thandapper account having a balance 2.14 Ares would not entitle the 4^th respondent to sell it to another as sought to be projected by the petitioner vide Ext.P1 document. It is settled law that the person who does not have a title cannot part it even through registered document. It was an exercise to defraud the State for claiming the compensation which was based upon a package deal arrived at during the acquisition authorities as well as the land owners.

¶55

Order Ext.P15 is perfectly legal and justified and do not call for any different opinion than the one taken therein. Writ petition is devoid of merit accordingly dismissed.

¶56

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶57

nak

¶58

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 569/2014

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶62

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.661/2013
EXHIBIT-P1: DATED 19/2/2013, ALUVA S.R.O.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED
EXHIBIT-P2: 20/6/2012.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT FOR TRANSFER OF
EXHIBIT-P3: REGISTRY FEES NO.4504231 DATED 14/3/2013.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF POSSESSION AND NON
ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE NO.1392/13 DATED
EXHIBIT-P4: 14/3/2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ALUVA WEST VILLAGE.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT
EXHIBIT-P5: NO.4686391 DATED 14/5/2013.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM 4B
DATED 20/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
EXHIBIT-P6:
RESPONDENT.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.9B
EXHIBIT-P7: ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶63

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT-P8: 16/3/2013.

¶64

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
EXHIBIT-P9: 3/5/2013 IN W.P.(C) NO.11455/2013, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA.

¶65

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 10/6/2013
EXHIBIT-P10: ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶66

EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
11/6/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶67

WP(C) NO. 569 OF 2014

¶68

¶69

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 18/7/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT-P11(A):
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 24/8/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT-P12:
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED
23/9/2013 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
EXHIBIT-P13: 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 7/10/2013
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT
EXHIBIT-P14:
TO INFORMATION ACT.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT NO.H3 12966/13 DATED
EXHIBIT-P15:
12/9/2013.

¶70

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT-P16:
FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28/10/2013.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC THANDAPER EXTRACT
EXHIBIT-P17: T.P.NO.4192.
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.4948745
EXHIBIT-P18: DATED 15.2.2013.
EXHIBIT R2(A)TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1039/1990

Naushad v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naushad v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Shanthi Vs State of Kerala

Zubair.M Vs State of Kerala

P.Muralidharan, Vs State of Kerala

Liju P.Reji Vs Mezhuveli Grama Panchayath

The Manager Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala State Human Rights Commission Vs State of Kerala