IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 1298 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- LAR.NO. 7/2006 & 8/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER --------------------- PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,SOUTH PARAVUR, KOLLAM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM.691 001 2. THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR, LA NO.11, KUNDARA , KOLLAM.691 501 3. R.LAINA,D/O.OMANA,CHEMPAPUZHA VEEDU, PARAVUR , KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-691 301 4. DEVASSY,S/O.ANTONY KUTHOORVEEDU, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 010. * ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED *R5: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/1/11 IN I.A.NO.626/2011 IN OP(C)NO.1298/2010 R1,R2 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SAJEEV R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SMT.BINDU GEORGE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.1298/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL.SUB JUDGE,KOLLAM IN LAR NUMBERS 7/2006 AND 8/2006 DATED 19/1/2010. P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.1298 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Other respondents appear through counsel. 2. Ext.P1, common judgment in L.A.R.No.7 and 8 of 2006 of the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Kollam is under challenge in this proceeding under Art.227 of the Constitution on the ground, inter alia that petitioner who is a an interested and necessary party to the proceeding was not given notice of the said proceedings and that, without such notice petitioner is now being called upon to pay substantial amount by way of enhanced compensation. 3. Facts which are in dispute are; items 1 and 2 – 4.25 Ares in re-survey 215/00 and 7.02 Ares in re-survey 216/21, 22 and 23 of Kottappuram Village in Kollam District which belonged to respondents 3 and 4, respectively were acquired by respondents 1 and 2 for developing the Municipal Bus stand of petitioner. The notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, "the Act”) was issued on 22.10.2003 and the property was taken possession on 22.07.2005. Following O.P(C).No.1298 of 2010 -: 2 :- that, the Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 13.07.2005. Since respondents 3 and 4 were not satisfied with the compensation awarded, they sought a reference under Sec.18 of the Act. Accordingly a reference was made and the learned Additional Sub Judge, Kollam awarded enhanced compensation in L.A.R.Nos.7 and 8 of 2006 as per a common judgment dated 19.01.2010. 4. Grievance of petitioner is that though, it was necessary that first respondent/District Collector at the time of making the reference to mention the name of petitioner as an interested party in the proceeding, that was not done. There was no notice to the petitioner from the reference Court also. While so, Exts.P2 and P3, notices are served on petitioner by the Special Tahsildar concerned directing petitioner to deposit enhanced compensation in Court pursuant to Ext.P1, common judgment. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that in view of Secs.19 and 20 of the Act it was absolutely necessary that petitioner was given notice of proceeding. It is pointed out that it is mandate of the law that petitioner who is an interested party was given notice of the proceedings. Ext.P1, common O.P(C).No.1298 of 2010 -: 3 :- judgment in so far as it is delivered without giving notice to the petitioner, is invalid and hence it is within the power of this Court to exercise its supervisory power under Art.227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Krishi Upaja Mandi Samiti Vs. Ashoka Singhal (AIR 1991 SC 1320), U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi and Ors. ((1995)2 SCC 326) and E.S.I Corporation Vs. State of Kerala (1998(1) KLT 712). 6. In response it is contended by learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that Ext.P1, common judgment is passed with jurisdiction and hence the remedy if any of petitioner is to challenge the common judgment in appeal. 7. Sec.19)(1)(b) of the Act requires that the Collector shall state for the information of the Court, in writing under his hand, the names of persons who, he has reason to think are interested in such land. Sec.20 of the Act states that the Court shall thereupon cause a notice to such persons specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the interested parties. Clause (b) relates to persons interested in in the objection, except (if any) of them as have O.P(C).No.1298 of 2010 -: 4 :- consented without protest to receive payment of compensation awarded. 8. It is not disputed that acquisition was made for and on behalf of petitioner and that it is ultimately for the petitioner to pay compensation as awarded by the reference Court. That is why the Special Tahsildar has served Exts.P2 and P3, notices on petitioner. Hence it cannot be disputed that petitioner is interested in the proceeding before the reference Court and the officer making the reference under Sec.19(1)(b) of the Act was required to give information to the Court in writing the name of petitioner. That is the principle laid down in the decisions referred supra. In U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi and Ors. (supra) it is also stated that it is open to the interested party to challenge such award in the High Court in exercise of the power under Art.227 of the Constitution. Following the decision of the Supreme Court this Court also has taken the same view in E.S.I Corporation Vs. State of Kerala (supra). 9. I stated that Ext.P1, common judgment was passed without reference to the petitioner. If that be so, petitioner cannot be asked to pay the huge amount payable by way of court O.P(C).No.1298 of 2010 -: 5 :- fee and prefer appeals. In that view I am inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that this Court is required to interfere in exercise of the supervisory power of this Court. 10. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that in case this Court interferes with Ext.P1, common judgment learned Additional Sub Judge may be directed to expedite the proceeding since notification was issued on 22.10.2003 and possession of the properties was taken on 22.07.2005. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel I am inclined to direct the learned Additional Sub Judge to do so. I also make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to seek its impleadment as additional respondent in the reference cases above stated. Resultantly this original petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) Ext.P1, common judgment dated January 19, 2010 in L.A.R.Nos.7 and 8 of 2006 of the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Kollam is quashed. Those reference cases are remitted to the learned Sub Judge for fresh decision after hearing petitioner as well. (ii) It is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to seek its impleadment in the reference cases by way of appropriate O.P(C).No.1298 of 2010 -: 6 :- application and if any such application is preferred, learned Additional Sub Judge shall decide the said applications in the light of the directions made above and the decisions referred supra as well as Secs.19 and 20 of the Act. (iii) Learned Additional Sub Judge is directed to expedite proceeding in the reference cases considering the fact that property was taken possession on 22.07.2005. (iv) Parties hereto shall appear before the learned Additional Sub Judge on 22.09.2011. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-