IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 6618 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.T. JANAKI AMMA, W/O. LATE K.V.RAGHAVA PODUVAL, KODIYATHU VADAKKEL VEEDU, KANKOLE POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO. 6618 of 2008 PETITIONER's EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30-10-94 SUBMITTED BY HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER LATE RAGHAVA PODUVAL BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY SPL.TAHSILDAR (LA) KANNUR TO THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DTD. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 4-1-07 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 21-2-07 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF AWARD AND DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. /True Copy/ PA to Judge. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 6618 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition under Article 226 has been filed by the petitioner who is the wife and power of attorney holder for the other legal heirs of one Raghava Poduval whose properties in R.S. No. 379/2 extending to .9800 hectars in Ramanthali village in Thaliparamba Taluk were acquired for the purposes of Ezhimala naval academy. Sri.Raghava Poduval, the awardee, had not sought for a reference under Section 18 regarding the correct compensation payable for the acquired properties. He would however file Ext.P1 application dated 30-10-1994 under Section 28A seeking re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the judgment in L.A.R. No. 98/1992. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband had committed the mistake of wrongly mentioning the survey number of the property as 380/4 and the extent of the property as 2 Acres in Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, on entering appearance before the land acquisition officer in pursuance to Ext.P2 hearing notice on 7-12-1998, Sri.Raghava Poduval WPC.No.6618/08 2 verbally submitted before the land acquisition officer that mistakes had been committed by him in the matter of mentioning survey number and the extent and that the officer did not pay any serious heed to the above submission. It is the case of the petitioner that though the enquiry was completed pursuant to Ext.P2, no award was passed. The passage of the award got delayed due to various reasons for which neither Sri.Raghava Poduval nor the petitioner or the other legal heirs of Sri.Raghava Poduval are responsible. After Sri.Raghava Poduval passed away, the petitioner submitted obviously on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her children who had in the meanwhile on 24-9-02 executed a power of attorney in her favour for pursuing Ext.P1 proceedings, a correction petition which is produced as Ext.P4. The prayer in Ext.P4 is that the mistake in Ext.P1 be corrected. In the meanwhile, the land acquisition officer had rejected Ext.P1 proceedings by Ext.P3 on the ground that the office records do not reveal acquisition of any land in the survey number mentioned in Ext.P1. It is actually on receiving Ext.P3 that Ext.P4 correction petition was filed by the petitioner. It appears that the land acquisition WPC.No.6618/08 3 officer became convinced that in Ext.P1 mistakes had crept into while mentioning survey number and the extent of the property and the land acquisition officer prepared draft award -Ext.P5 and submitted the same before the District Collector for approval. The District Collector however would issue Ext.P5 letter ( the marking is wrong) to the land acquisition officer returning the award and the connected documents without granting approval and calling upon the land acquisition officer to submit explanation as to why he has proceeded to recommend for payment of compensation in this “ineligible case”. 2. Raising various grounds, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: “i) to quash Ext.P3. ii) to allow Ext.P4 and to permit the petitioner to correct the mistakes occurred in Ext.P1 regarding the re-survey number and extent of the property . iii) to direct the 2nd respondent to accept the award passed by the 3rd respondent acting upon Exts.P1 and P4; iv) to declare that the action of the respondent that the petitioner is not eligible for enhanced WPC.No.6618/08 4 compensation is wrong and to direct the second respondent to accept the award passed by the 3rd respondent dated 13-11-2007 and disburse the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner.” 3. The land acquisition officer has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying Ext.P3 as well as the stand of the District Collector in Ext.P5. According to the land acquisition officer Ext.P1 was not entertainable since no property of the petitioner comprised in the survey number mentioned in Ext.P1 had been acquired. 4. I have heard the submissions of Sri.O.Ramachandran Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader. Addressing me on the basis of the various grounds raised in the writ petition, Sri.Nambiar submitted that it is not in dispute that the property belonging to Sri.Raghava Poduval who is now survived by the petitioner and the children extending to 0.9800 Hectare in R.S.No.379/2 of Ramanthali village had been acquired for the establishment of the naval academy. No other property belonging to Sri.Raghava Poduval had been acquired by the Government for that purpose. It is therefore clear that a wrong survey WPC.No.6618/08 5 number and extent was mentioned in Ext.P1. Counsel also submitted that the averments in the writ petition that Sri.Raghava Poduval on entering appearance before the land acquisition officer on 7-12-1998 submitted before the land acquisition officer that mistakes had crept into Ext.P1 have not been denied. The avernments therefore stand established by non-traverse. Counsel lastly submitted that whoever was responsible for the mistake and whether or not Sri.Raghava Poduval had brought these mistakes to the notice of the officer on 7-12-1998., the fact remains that Sri.Raghava Poduval's property extending to . 9800 hectares in R.S.No. 379/2 of Ramanthali Village had been acquired against an award passed by the officer and he had applied for redetermination under Section 28 A on time on the basis of a relevant court judgment. 5. Learned Government Pleader would resist the submissions of Sri.O.Ramachandran Nambiar. According to the learned Government Pleader, the land acquisition officer cannot be faulted for having issued Ext.P3 since Ext.P1 seeks redetermination of compensation in respect of property which was not the subject matter WPC.No.6618/08 6 of any award. Ext.P1 was liable to be rejected at the threshold itself and therefore the District Collector was justified in demanding explanation from the land acquisition officer regarding the preparation of Ext.P5 award. 6. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar in the light of the various documents placed on record by the parties. I am not impressed by the case of the petitioner that Sri.Raghava Poduval had submitted before the land acquisition officer on entering appearance in response toExt.P2 that mistakes had crept into Ext.P1 and that the officer did not pay any heed to the said submission. I am of the view that mistakes had crept into Ext.P1 due to negligence on the part of Sri.Raghava Poduval himself and that such mistakes were sought to be rectified by the petitioner only on 21-2-2007 when they filed Ext.P4. At the same time having regard to the legislative objectives which underlie Section 28A as explained by the judgments of the Apex Court and this court, I am of the view that the mentioning of a wrong survey number and extent in Ext.P1 should not be allowed to stand in the way of the correct compensation for the WPC.No.6618/08 7 acquired properties being re-determined in terms of the court award in L.A.R. No. 98/92 since it is seen that L.A.R. No. 98/92 was a case in respect of acquisition for the same purpose covered by the very same section 4(1) notification. At the same time, I find merit in the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Government should not be mulcted with the liability of paying statutory interest for the period during which the mistake remained unrectified. As already indicated, it is clear to my mind that the petitioner became alerted regarding the mistake committed by her predecessor Sri.Raghava Poduval in drafting Ext.P1 only when she received Ext.P3 and the first endeavour made by her to get such mistakes corrected was filing of Ext.P4. In that view of the matter, even as I am inclined to grant relief directing passage of fresh award on the basis of Ext.P1 corrected as per Ext.P4, I am inclined to clarify that the petitioners will not be entitled for statutory interest due on the redetermined compensation for the period from 30-10-1994 till 21-02-2007. 7. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition will stand allowed to the following extent: WPC.No.6618/08 8 Ext.P3 is quashed. Ext.P4 will stand allowed and Ext.P1 will stand corrected accordingly. The third respondent-land acquisition officer is directed to consider Ext.P1 as corrected by this judgment, hear the petitioner and pass a fresh award redetermining the compensation, but without granting any interest on the redetermined compensation for the period from 30-10-1994 till 21-02-2007. It is made clear that this judgment dis-entitles the petitioner to interest only for the period mentioned herein above and not for any subsequent period. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.6618/08 9