IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 676 of 2008(A) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4834/2008 Dated 20/06/2008 .................... : REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- N.K.SURESH,S/O. KOCHU NARAYANAN AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NJATTU VEETTIL CHERANELLOOR, KOCHI-34 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRISHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG,NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KRISHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG,NEW DELHI 110 001. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF SHIPPING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PARIVAHAN BHAVAN, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT OF FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PARIVAHAN BHAVAN, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003. 5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS PARIVAHAN BHAVAN , I SANSAD MARG STREET NEW DELHI 110 001. 6. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND KOCHI-3 7. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA G-5 & 6 SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI 110 075 8. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 9. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 10. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) VALLARPADAM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TRANSHIPMENT TERMINAL PROJECT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR ADV.SRI.K.ANAND FOR R6 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R7 P.PARAMESWARANA NAIR, ASST. SG R1 TO R5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 2. /7/2008 , ALONG WITH R.P. NO.677/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- R.P. NO.676/2008 IN WPC 4834/2008 R.P. 677/2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 11556 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 O R D E R The writ petitioners seeks review of my common judgment in W.P.(C).4834/2008, 37570/2007, 161/2008, 4728/2008, 4834/2008,5380/2008, 11556/2008 & 11556/2008. Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners have addressed me on the grounds raised in the Review Petition. I have also heard the submissions of Sri. Siby Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in some other writ petitions. Sri.D.Anil Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader addressed me on behalf of the respondent State Government and the public officers under the State Government. Sri.Anand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Port Trust and the Assistant Solicitor General have also addressed me. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the State Government and the District Collector are interpreting my judgment in such a manner as to confine the rehabilitation benefits only to those petitioners who have opted for DLPC package and to deny such R.P.676/2008 & others 2 benefits in all cases where awards have been passed under the Land Acquisition Act. Sri. Suresh Kumar would submit that in almost all these cases awards have been passed under the Land Acquisition Act and if the interpretation of the Government to the directions issued by this court under the judgment is to be adopted, the same will virtually amount to depriving almost all the petitioners of the reliefs which this court has actually conferred on the evictees. Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar would submit that the last sentence in clause (a) of the operative paragraph of the judgment i.e. paragraph 30 requires to be reviewed. The learned counsel also submitted that the parenthetical clause at the end of the last sentence in clause (c) of paragraph 30 also requires to be deleted lest the eligible parties may be denied the full amount which this court has granted to them by way of special rehabilitation allowance. Sri.Suresh Kumar would lastly submit that atleast in a few cases where some of the evictees have opted for DLPC package and have actually executed sale deed, sale consideration has not been paid and that the Government insisting on immediate eviction. 3. Sri.Siby Mathew would submit that in order that the evictees from Moolampilly also gets the benefits of this judgment, it is necessary that the special directions are incorporated regarding such R.P.676/2008 & others 3 evictees in whose cases awards have been passed and have been actually evicted. 4. Sri.D.Anil Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader took exception to the submission of Sri.Siby Mathew that evictees from Moolampilly are being deprived of the rehabilitation benefits under the cover of this judgment. According to the learned Government Pleader Ext.R2(b) has not been touched by this court and evictees from Moolampilly will be rehabilitated on the basis of Ext.R2 (b). The learned Government Pleader also took strong exception to the submissions of Sri. Suresh Kumar that sale deeds have been taken without the vendors being paid the agreed consideration. As regards the main grievance of the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader placed before me the written instructions imparted by the District Collector in the matter on 2.7.2008, wherein the Government has expressed willingness to confer all the benefits of DLPC package also to those persons in whose cases awards have been passed under the Land Acquisition Act but possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. The relevant paragraphs of the District Collector's letter addressed to the Advocate General are extracted below for convenience. R.P.676/2008 & others 4 i). As per common judgment DLPC package will not be available to cases where awards under Land Acquisition Act have already been passed. Some of the writ petitioners in the common judgment referred above, have filed review petition seeking clarifications to the effect that in case of persons where awards have already been passed should also be extended the benefits of DLPC rates. 2. In order to take possession of land of the remaining persons we can take stand that reliefs of DLPC package may be given to those people in whose cases awards have been passed under Land Acquisition Act but possession has not been taken and compensation not paid. But this can be done only if the above persons withdraw their court reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and give an undertaking that they will not apply for court reference. Since the matter needs to be finalised R.P.676/2008 & others 5 urgently a maximum period of two days may be given for them to comply with above directions and file DLPC option and submit necessary documents. “ 5. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I am of the view that it was never the intention of this court to deny the rehabilitation benefits to the evictees in whose cases awards under the Land Acquisition Act have been passed. A careful reading of the judgment will show that this court became inclined to accept the claim of the petitioners for rehabilitation benefits to a considerable extent on the basis of the resettlement and rehabilitation policy declared by the Government of India in 2003 and also by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to in the judgment. Though option has been given to the parties under clause (a) of paragraph 30, the same has been given only in the context of the monetary compensation to be paid to the persons who are being deprived of their properties whether such compensation should be determined in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act or in terms of the land value rates fixed by the DLPC. In my R.P.676/2008 & others 6 opinion clause(c) of paragraph 30 which specifically deals with rehabilitation benefits is clear enough to indicate that eligibility for rehabilitation benefits will be independent of the party opting for DLPC rates. 6. However, since it is clear that operative portion of my judgment has given rise to some confusion in the matter of identifying the persons who should be given the benefits of rehabilitation and also since I find some merit in the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners (which is practically endorsed by the learned Government Pleader also) I am inclined to allow these review petitions and issue the following directions/clarifications; a). Evictees from Moolampilly will be entitled for the rehabilitation benefits which have been extended to them by the Government under Ext.R2(b) and such benefits will not be denied to them on the reason that awards have been passed and that their lands have already been taken possession of. b). The relief given under clause (a) of paragraph 30 of my judgment i.e. regarding exercise of option for DLPC rates is extended R.P.676/2008 & others 7 also to those parties in whose cases awards has been passed under the Land Acquisition Act provided compensation amount has not been paid and possession has not been taken. (c). Time for exercising option granted under clause (a) is extended till 5 P.M. on 5.7.2008. d). If any such persons covered by (b) and (c) above ( awards already passed under the Land Acquisition Act but possession has not been taken and compensation not paid) have already filed reference applications under Section 18, it is open to the Land Acquisition Officer to close such reference applications as unnecessary. e). The parenthetical clause ( basic land value x 2 ) at the end of the last sentence in clause (c) of the judgment is hereby deleted. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk