IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2430 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6348/2008 Dated 29/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: V. BHASKARAN PILLAI ADVOCATE, KURUMPELIL, PERUMPUZHA P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 2370 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & M.C. HARI RANI,J ============================== W.A.Nos.2430 & 2370 of 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MARCH 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy,Ag.C.J. Both the appeals are filed against the judgment in W.P. (C)No.6348/2008. 37 Ares of land in Survey No.302 of Kottamkara Village(presently in R.S.No.12/37 of Elampalloor Village) was acquired for the construction of Mulavana Distributory from the left bank canal of the Kallada Irrigation Project. Out of the above land, 19.70 Ares of land belonged to the petitioner. It is his case that he has only 21 Ares and 45 sq.metres of land and this is the substantial portion of land. Even though the land was acquired, the purpose for which it was acquired was abandoned and that the land was remaining unutilized. Only very paltry compensation was paid for the land acquired. The petitioner earlier approached this court by filing W.P.(C)No.18949/2006 for re-assigning the land. That was WA.NOS.2370 & 2430/2008 -2- opposed by the Sate on the ground that once the land is acquired and if the land belongs to the Government it cannot be reconveyed. If the land is not necessary, it can only be used for any public purpose or sold through public auction as held by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Bhaskara Pillai, 1997(2) K.L.T.217. But the above writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge directing that the Government is to consider the application. Bhaskara Pillai's case was distinguished by the learned single Judge in Ext.P1 judgment. The learned Judge held as follows: “In Bhaskara Pillai's case the land acquired for a public purpose. In that case after the public purpose was achieved a portion of the land acquired was left unused. In such case the Apex Court held that the land so left shall either sold by public auction or shall be assigned only for a public purpose. In this case the public purpose was abandoned and no portion of the land notified was used for any public purpose.” WA.NOS.2370 & 2430/2008 -3- 2. The above decision has become final. The Government has not filed any appeal against the same. But the application for assignment was denied. Again the petitioner approached this Court which resulted in the impugned judgment. Apart from other contentions, the learned Judge found that 37 Ares of land was acquired. The case involved in this case is only 19.70 Ares of land. The balance land is also remaining unutilized. That was also not sold by public auction even now. The land is not required for any public purpose which acquired for any other purpose. In spite of the notification, no other Government department also opted for this land. The District Collector was not able to fix upset price so far. Therefore, the learned single Judge held that the land may be reconveyed to the petitioner on the peculiar facts of the case. The learned single Judge noticed that earlier it was directed the Government to sell the land by interim order of this Court dated 23-5-2008. No upset price was fixed and no steps were taken in this regard. Considering the WA.NOS.2370 & 2430/2008 -4- facts and circumstances of the case, in the impugned judgment the learned single Judge has given the following directions: “ 1. The petitioner is directed to repay the District Collector within one month of receiving copy of this judgment the total amount of Rs.1,72,813/- which was paid to him under the award passed by the land acquisition officer with interest @15% per annum on the entire amount from date of payment till date of repayment. 2) Once repayment is made, respondent will reconvey the property to the petitioner by executing a deed of sale and facilitating its registration within one month thereafter on condition that the entire cost for the same will be borne by the petitioner himself. 3) The Sub court, Kollam will keep all proceedings in the LAR registered under Section 18 regarding the subject properties in abeyance on noticing copy of this judgment and once it is reported WA.NOS.2370 & 2430/2008 -5- that deed of re-conveyance is executed, that court will strike the LAR off the file. 4) The District Collector will initiate and finalise proceedings for selling the 17.30 Ares of land also acquired under the very same section 4(1) notification lying contiguous to the subject properties in public auction within one year of receiving a copy of this judgment and if on recalculation the value of the subject properties as per the centage value realised in that public auction is found to be more than the amount that was paid by the petitioner pursuant to this judgment, the petitioner will be bound to pay to the Government the difference within one month of receiving demand in that regard from the District Collector. Non-compliance with that demand will entail liability on the petitioner to repay the amounts with interest @ 15% per annum from date of demand recoverable by resort to revenue recovery WA.NOS.2370 & 2430/2008 -6- proceedings.” 3. We fully agree with the above directions of the learned single Judge. Based on the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner was directed not only to pay the amount received but also directed to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the entire amount. The learned Judge also directed that if unutilized balance acquired land is sold in public auction, the petitioner shall pay similar amount with interest. Considering the directions in this case especially peculiar facts, we are of the view that no interference is required in these appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed. We make it clear that it is only on the peculiar facts of the case, but not of the general application. It is submitted that the petitioner has deposited the amount for reconveyance of the property, which was not accepted by the Government. Hence, the petitioner has deposited the amount in the State Bank of India. The District Collector may accept the amount as directed for reconveyance of the land. Reconveyance should be effected within three WA.NOS.2370 & 2430/2008 -7- months as directed by the learned Judge from the date of receiving a copy of this judgment . Appeals filed by the State as well as the appellant are dismissed. No order as to costs. J.B. KOSHY, Ag.Chief Justice M.C. HARI RANI, ks. Judge