IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 36283 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VALLICODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.O.VALLICODE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LAND ACQUISITION & GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. VASUDEVA KURUP, S/O. KOCHUKUNJUKURUP, PERUMPALATHETH HOUSE, P.O.VALLICODE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. SAROJINI AMMA, D/O. MADHAVI AMMA, PERUMPALATHETH HOUSE, P.O.VALLICODE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. SUMATHY KUTTY AMMA, D/O. BHAVANI AMMA, KODIYANTEPADINJATTETHIL HOUSE, P.O.VALLICODE, PATHANAMTHITTA. *6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 29/01/2008 IN IA NO.1298/2008) R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW R1, R2 & ADDL.R6 BY SHRI.BASANT BALAJI, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 36283/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE AWARD IN L.A.R.3/04 DATED 27/11/2006 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. P2 : COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 30/03/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER (NO.657/07/D.) RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a) : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24/05/2004 IN WP(C) No. 13815, 13845 & 13859/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. R3(b) : COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 14/03/2007 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R3(c) : COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 14/03/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R3(d) : COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 14/03/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36283 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th March, 2008. J U D G M E N T Vallicode Grama Panchayat, who is the requisitioning authority in a land acquisition proceedings, is the petitioner in this writ petition. Petitioner filed a requisition before the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, for acquisition of 1 Acre 22 cents of dry land in Survey No.256/2 of Vallicode Village, for the purpose of launching a water supply scheme for the benefit of the Panchayat. The land was acquired. The claimant filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), but it was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. In the meanwhile, certain other persons whose lands were also acquired for the same purpose, filed petitions under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was referred to the Sub Court, and numbered as L.A.R.No.3/2004. In that case, the petitioner got itself impleaded as additional defendant. The matter was decided after hearing the Land Acquisition Officer, as well as the petitioner/local authority. That judgment was pronounced on 27.11.2006. Thereafter, respondents 3 to 5 filed a petition under Section 28A of the Act praying that in view of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.36283/2007 2 LAR.No.3/2004, the compensation awarded to them may be re- determined. The Land Acquisition officer issued notice to those persons along and re-determined that compensation. Challenging that decision, this writ petition is filed. 2. One and only ground on which the Grama Panchayat seek the relief of setting aside the award passed under Section 28A of the Act is that it was not heard. Ext.P1 judgment produced by respondents 3 to 5 shows that in that also, Vallicode Grama Panchayat got itself impleaded as additional claimants and contested the matter. It is submitted by Sri.Vijayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that challenging the decree and judgment passed in L.A.R.No.3/2004, the local authority has filed appeal as L.A.A.No.1753/2007, with a petition to condone the delay, and that matter is still pending before this Court. So, the question arising for consideration is whether the petitioner Grama Panchayat has a right to be heard while awarding compensation under Section 28A of the Act. In U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (AIR 1995 SC 724), a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had considered the locus standi of the requisitioning authority, and held as follows:- “25. To sum up, out conclusions are: W.P.(C) No.36283/2007 3 1. Section 50(2) of the L.A.Act confers on a local authority for whom land is being acquired a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. 2. The said right carries with it the right to be given adequate notice by the Collector as well as the reference Court before whom acquisition proceeidngs are pending of the date on which he matter of determination of compensation will be taken up. 3. The proviso to S.50(2) only precludes a local authority from seeking a reference but it does not deprive the local authority which feels aggrieved by the determination of the amount of compensation by the Collector or by the reference Court to invoke the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as the remedies available under the L.A.Act. 4. In the event of denial of the right conferred by S.50(2) on account of failure of the Collector to serve notice of the acquisition proceedings the local authority can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Even when notice has been served on the local authority the remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution would be available to the local authority on grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Art. 226. 6. The local authority is a proper party in the proceedings before the reference court and is entitled to be impleaded as a party in those proceedings wherein it can defend the determination of the amount of compensation W.P.(C) No.36283/2007 4 by the Collector and oppose enhancement of the said amount and also adduce evidence in that regard. 7. In the event of enhancement of the amount of compensation by the reference Court if the Government does not file an appeal the local authority can file an appeal against the award in the High Court after obtaining leave of the Court. 8. In an appeal by the person having an interest in land seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court, the local authority should be impleaded as a party and is entitled to be served notice of the said appeal. This would apply to an appeal in the High Court as well as in this Court. 9. Since a company for whom land is being acquired has the same right as a local authority under S.50(2), whatever has been said with regard to a local authority would apply to a company too. 10. The matters which stand finally concluded will, however, not be reopened. “ So, the matter is no more res integra. The requisitioning authority whether it is a Government Department/Corporation/Local Authority/Company have a right to be heard before passing any award by the Collector. That is a right conferred under the provisions of the Statute. It is seen that at present there is no practice of issuing notice to the Department/Company/Local Authority/Corporation, the requisitioning authority. W.P.(C) No.36283/2007 5 3. In W.P.(C) No. 34818/2007 and connected matter, I have already issued certain directions. One of the direction was that from the stage of notification under Section 4 of the Act itself, copy shall be given to the authority for whom the land is acquired. Even if it is a Government Department, notice shall be given to it, at the time of Section 6(1) declaration, award notice etc. If any of the claimants files a petition under Sections 18, 28A or 28A(3) of the Act, the Claimant themselves should implead the requisitioning authority. If the requisitioning authority is not made a party, the Land Acquisition Officer shall return such application to the person who has filed the same for curing the defect and to re-present the same, within a time limit, either two weeks or one month. If the claimants cure the defect and re-present the application within the time allowed, that application shall be treated as one filed on the date of initial filing. There will be a further direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to acknowledge the receipt of the applications, as provided in Rule 16 A and return the third copy to the petitioner who filed the same with the necessary endorsement as provided in Rule 16A(3) of the Rules. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2 order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is hereby set aside. He is directed to pass fresh orders, in accordance with law, after hearing the W.P.(C) No.36283/2007 6 claimants and also the Panchayat, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the Land Revenue Commissioner and Chief Secretary with a direction to communicate a copy of this judgment to all Land Acquisition Officers in the State for strict compliance. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.