IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 8757 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ANTONY LOPEZ, KADAVATH HOUSE AISWARYA ROAD, JANATHA, PALARIVATTOM P.O. KOCHI-682025 2. M.M.JOY, S/O.MATHEW EDATHURUTHIL HOUSE, JOYSON NIVAS, KENNADY JUNCTION THRIKKAKARA P.O. -682021. 3. HASSAINAR, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE KENNADY JUNCTION, THRIKKAKARA P.O.-682021. 4. MARIAMMA MATHAI, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE KENNADY JUNCTION, THRIKKAKARA P.O.-682021. 5. M.J.ABDUL RAHMAN, MUTTEL HOUSE KOLLAKKERI PADM, THRIKKAKARA P.O.-682021. 6. RUKKIYA, W/O.SALIM KOLLAKKERI PADAM, MUTTEL HOUSE THRIKKAKARA P.O.-682021 REPRESENTING HERSELF AND HER HUSBAND SALIM. 7. MARRY AUGASTIAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL THRIKKAKARA P.O. -682021. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WATER IRRIGATION, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. 3. SPECIAL THASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, L.A.GENERAL, KAKKANAD COCHIN. 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8757 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the owners of land on the side of HUDCO pipeline. They surrendered their lands for implementation of HUDCO Water Augmentation Project of the Kerala Water Authority(KWA). The package proposal Ext.P1, as modified by Exts.P2 and P3, were drawn by the respondents for smooth acquisition of land through negotiation and surrender. The petitioners surrendered their lands agreeing to Exts.P1 to P3 package proposal. According to the petitioners, the respondents are liable to extend rehabilitation benefits to them since they have executed Ext.P4 agreement. Their grievance is that by issuing Ext.P7, the Government has incorporated following additional conditions. “a). The beneficiaries shall execute an agreement that they forget their claim for litigation for additional compensation. b). The balance unusable land, if any, WPC.No.8757/2008 2 left over after acquisition will be surrendered free of cost to the Kerala Water Authority. c). The beneficiaries will not be eligible for any other concession/benefits in respect of (b).” 2. The petitioners are aggrieved mainly by clause (b) of Ext.P7. They place strong reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court (Ext.P10). Under Ext.P10, this court considered the legality of the three clauses in Ext.P7. This court in Ext.P10 held that the respondents are not entitled to insist that for getting rehabilitation benefits, the petitioner should surrender left over lands after acquisition and that too free of cost. This court further held that the petitioner in Ext.P10 is entitled to get monetary value of 2½ cents of land which was actually acquired from his possession. Following the reasons in Ext.P10, I also hold that the respondents are not entitled to insist that condition No.(b) in clause “m” of Ext.P7 should be obeyed by the petitioners. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it will be sufficient if the petitioners are given WPC.No.8757/2008 3 opportunity to have the question of the correct compensation payable for their acquired properties determined by the competent Sub Court under Section 18. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners did not apply under Section 18 in view of Exts.P1 to P4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority Sri.Babu Varghese submitted that he is not in a position to agree that the petitioners can be allowed the facility of having reference under Section 18. However, I feel that on the facts and circumstances which attend on this case, there is justification for facilitating a reference under Section 18 even at this distance of time. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition issuing the following directions ; i). If the petitioners file applications for reference under Section 18 before the third respondent within three weeks of their receiving a copy of this judgment, the third respondent will entertain those applications as though they are filed on time and make references to the competent sub court the question of determining the correct WPC.No.8757/2008 4 compensation which was payable to them for their acquired properties notwithstanding the terms of Exts.P1 to Ext.P4. It is made clear that since reference will be facilitated, the petitioners will not be eligible for the package. It is also made clear that Ext.P7 has not been interfered with in the case of the petitioners notwithstanding my approval regarding the reasoning adopted in Ext.P10 against Ext.P7. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk