IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 36124 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. M.K.GOMATHY, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. RAMAKRISHANAN, PUTHUVALPARAMBIL VEEDU,MANJUMMAL P.O., UDYOGAMANDAL -ELOOR 683 501. 2. P.R.SREEKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHANAN, PUTHUVALPARAMBIL VEEDU,MANJUMMAL P.O., UDYOGAMANDAL -ELOOR 683 501. 3. SURESH BABU, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHANAN, PUTHUVALPARAMBIL VEEDU,MANJUMMAL P.O., UDYOGAMANDAL -ELOOR 683 501. 4. SANTHILAL, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHANAN, PUTHUVALPARAMBIL VEEDU,MANJUMMAL P.O., UDYOGAMANDAL -ELOOR 683 501. 5. SAJEEV, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.RAMAKRISHANAN, PUTHUVALPARAMBIL VEEDU,MANJUMMAL P.O., UDYOGAMANDAL -ELOOR 683 501. REORESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND BROTHER SURESH BABU. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL W.P.C.NO.36124/07 RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL LANES-KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL THAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION, VALLARPADOM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TRANSHIPMENT TERMINAL PROJECT COLLECTORATE BUILDING KAKKANAD 4. COCHIN PORT TRUST PORT TRUST OFFICE WILLINGTON ISLAND COCHIN - 9, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 5. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA G5 - 6, SECTOR 10 DWARAKA - NEW DELHI - 110 045 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.36124 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioners whose properties are proposed to be acquired for providing road connectivity to the International Container Transshipment Terminal Project at Vallarpadom is that the petitioners are going to be deprived of their valuable properties without being paid the correct market value. 2. When this writ petition came up for admission, this court was informed that award has been passed and the time is already over for the petitioners opting for the DLPC rates which is said to be more attractive than the rates fixed by the awarding officer in the land acquisition proceedings. This court however passed an interim order on 19/12/2007 granting one more opportunity to the petitioners to avail the benefit of getting DLPC rates. 3. Sri.Sivan Madathil submits that even the DLPC rates which are being offered are far below the correct market value. Counsel therefore requested that an adjudication as to what is the correct market WPC.No.36124/07 2 value of the properties should be facilitated by a competent court. The above being the stand of the counsel, I am of the view that the petitioners have to seek a reference of the issue of the correct compensation payable for the properties mentioned in the award stated to be already passed to the competent civil court. It is submitted that on account of the pendency of this writ petition the petitioners were unable to seek a reference within the statutory period of six weeks of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on them. Considering the special circumstances which attend on this case, I am of the view that if the petitioners prefer an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Officer within seven days from today seeking a reference under Section 18 of the question as to the correct compensation payable for the properties mentioned in the award already passed, the Land Acquisition Officer will treat that application as a valid one filed within the statutory time limit and make a reference under Section 18 to the competent civil court. The application need be entertained by the land WPC.No.36124/07 3 acquisition officer only if the award amount has been received by the petitioners under protest. It is open to the petitioners to receive the award amount offered to them under protest and seek a reference as directed above. It is made clear that this benefit of making reference application even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation will be available only to the petitioners. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.36124/07 4