IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 OP.No. 4128 of 2000(N) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.P.NARAYANAN, KUNHIPPARAMBATH HOUSE, (P.O.) IRINGAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CALICUT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP 4128/2000 ORDER ON CMP NO.6728 OF 2000 IN O.P.NO.4128 OF 2000 DISMISSED 19.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 15.5.1999. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No.4128 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 19th June, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he filed Ext.P1 application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within the statutory period, the respondent-land acquisition officer rejected the application passing Ext.P2 order and the main prayer in the Original Petition is that Ext.P2 order be quashed. There is also a prayer to direct the respondent to refer Ext.P1 to the competent civil court. The O.P. was allowed on 13.12.2000 by a learned Single Judge of this court taking the view that there was no case of the respondent that the petitioner was present when the award was made or that the petitioner had received notice under Section 12(2) and has failed to make the application within the statutory period of six weeks from the date of receipt of notice. Later producing Annexure I, a review of the judgment was sought for and I allowed the Review Petition. I allowed the R.P. mainly on noticing a document which has been produced along with the R.P. as Annexure I which prima facie indicated that the petitioner had been served with notice under Section 12(2). 2. I have heard Mr.C.Vathsalan, learned counsel for the O.P.No.4128/00 - 2 - petitioner and Mr.Shyson P.Manguzha, learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with reference to Annexure I which is a copy of notice under Section 12(2) allegedly served on the petitioner that Annexure I cannot be construed as an award notice in respect of whole of the acquired property of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the properties acquired from the petitioner were comprised in R.S.Nos.71/10 and 75/7. Annexure I does not mention anything about the acquired properties in R.S.No.75/7. Counsel would further argued that there are apparent corrections on the date put by the notice server on Annexure I. The original date of 20.4.1999 was subsequently corrected as 20.1.1999. If the date of service is taken as 20.4.1999, Ext.P1 will be within the period of limitation. Learned counsel submitted that second signature seen on Annexure I is not the signature of the notice server but the signature of the Village Officer who had nothing to do with the actual service of notice. 4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that neither the statute nor the relevant rule, i.e., Rule 13 of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules insists that the award notice under Section 12(2) shall contain details of all the survey numbers relating to the acquired O.P.No.4128/00 - 3 - property. What the law requires is only that the party should be given notice regarding the compensation determined so that if he so wants, he can file objection and seek a reference. The Government Pleader further submitted that the allegation that the village man who was deputed to surrender Annexure I on the petitioner has made corrections in the date are wrong. The village man does not stand to gain anything by making such corrections. The village man is expected to submit his report before the Village Officer and the Village Officer's counter signature will reveal that the report was submitted by the village man on 21.1.1999. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. It will be immediately stated that I am not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice server, the village man has made corrections on Annexure I resulting in the reference application Ext.P1 becoming liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation. The counter signature put by the Village Officer will show that the report of service was submitted before the Village Officer prior to 21.1.1999 which means that service was made prior to 21.1.1999. Coming to the grievance that Annexure I does not mention the survey numbers of the acquired property, the learned O.P.No.4128/00 - 4 - counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded before me that out of the total extent of 0.0060 hectares, the lion's share, i.e.,0.0058 hectares was in Survey No.71/10 and only a very small fraction extending 0.0002 hectares was comprised in the other survey number. Section 12(2) only mandates that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to the awardees and the persons interested. The relevant rule is rule 13 of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules and the same reads as follows: “13. Notice of award and payment – (1) Immediately, after the award is made, the Land Acquisition Officer shall issue a notice of award in Form No.10(b). The said notice shall be served on the awardees as well as other persons interested in the land in the manner prescribed in Section 45. (2) In case the awardees or their authorised agents fail to appear and accept the award or fail to apply for a reference to Court under Section 18, the amount due shall be paid into the treasury as Revenue Deposit payable to the persons to whom it is respectively due and vouched for in Form E. A notice intimating the deposit of the amount into the Treasury shall also be served on all the awardees and interested persons in Form No.11. O.P.No.4128/00 - 5 - (3) As soon as the payment or deposit of the award is completed, a subsidiary statement in Form 'B' showing the acceptance of award shall be sent to the Accountant General in duplicate. (4) Where an award has been made by a Court under Section 25, a second award statement shall be prepared in Form 'C' by the Land Acquisition Officer and a copy thereof sent to the Accountant General in duplicate. (5) The Accountant General will forward one copy each of the completed A, B and C statements to the Board of Revenue which will be filed there and retained permanently.” Thus what the rule insists is that the Land Acquisition Officer shall give award notice in Form No.10(b) and that the notice shall be served on the awardees as well as the persons interested in the manner prescribed in Section 45. Service of notice through process servers deputed in that regard is one of the manners mentioned in Section 45. Form No.10(b) consists of four columns and the first column is for mentioning survey number and sub division number. In Annexure I also the first column has been filled up but the survey number mentioned is only 71/10 and survey No.75/7 is not mentioned at all. Thus, I am in agreement with the counsel for the O.P.No.4128/00 - 6 - petitioner when he submits that Annexure I is defective to the extent of not mentioning both the survey numbers. But at the same time, I am of the view that this defect will not vitiate Annexure I in as much as the petitioner cannot have a legitimate grievance that he has not been served with award award notice. The legislative objective underlying Section 12(2) and the Rule 13 is only that the awardee should be informed readily about the compensation determined so that if he is having any objections, he can seek a reference to the court for determination of the correct compensation which according to him is entitled. It was not disputed before me by the learned counsel that the compensation amount of Rs.1,56,193/- mentioned in Annexure I is the total amount that was awarded for the properties in both the survey numbers. That being the position, I am inclined to accept the Government's stand that the petitioner had notice of the award and having not sought for a reference within the statutory period of six weeks, the Land Acquisition Officer was correct in rejecting Ext.P1 and passing Ext.P2. 6. I am informed that the case pertains to acquisition of land for the purpose of doubling of railway lines. I am sure that other cases covered by the very same Section 4(1) notification would have O.P.No.4128/00 - 7 - reached the reference court. Neither Ext.P2 nor this judgment confirming Ext.P2 will stand in the way of the petitioner applying for redetermination under Section 28A on the basis of a relevant court judgment. Subjection to the above observation, the Original Petition is dismissed. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE