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. 23969 of 2006(C) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. SYED ABDURAHIMAN JIFRI, S/O.LATE SYED ALAVI JIFRI, THANGAL HOUSE, PANICKER ROAD, CALICUT. 2. SMT.SHERIFA HAMEED, D/O.SYED ALAVI JIFRI, RESIDING DO. 3. SMT.MOBINA FAZAL JIFRI, W/O.FASSAL JIFRI, RESIDING DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE. 4. CORPORATION OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN R4 BY ADV.MR.C.M.SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 23969/06) PETITIONERS' EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 24.2.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.3.2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.23969 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 12th June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition for a direction to respondents 1 to 3, the land acquisition authorities to accept the applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, Exts.P4, P5 and P6, which according to them were actually attempted to be submitted before the authorities but could not be submitted since they were unwilling to accept. The other reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition is that the existence of Ext.P2 agreement cannot in any way affect the statutory right of the petitioners to move application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. Ext.P2 is an agreement executed between the petitioners and the Corporation of Calicut, the requisitioning authority. On the terms of Ext.P2 the petitioners have willingly agreed to receive the compensation determined by the land acquisition authority in full and final settlement of all their claims for the acquired property. It is stated that the petitioners will not seek a reference under Section 18 nor a redetermination under Section 28A. The petitioners do not dispute the execution of Ext.P2 agreement. Quoted below are the pleadings of the petitioners regarding the W.P.C.No.23969/06 - 2 - circumstances under which Ext.P2 was executed by them: “While so the 4th respondent approached the petitioners to arrive at a amicable settlement and agreed that the entire properties covered by 4(1) notification would be acquired. That means the entire properties covered by TS No.196, 197 and 198 in Block No.10 Ward No.21 of the Corporation of Calicut. An agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the 4th respondent in February, 2005. As per the agreement, the petitioners have agreed to relinquish their right to claim for any enhanced compensation and that they will not move any petition under Section 18 and 28A of the Act. True copy of the agreement is produced herein and marked as Ext.P2.” According to the petitioners, when the award was passed by the land acquisition officer, there is no mention in the award about Ext.P2 agreement. There is no case that Ext.P2 is vitiated in any manner. The grievance seems to be that in Ext.P2 there was an agreement by the Corporation that the entire extent of 7.07 ares belonging to the petitioners will be got acquired. But actually acquisition proceedings were initiated and award was passed only in respect of 5.44 acres. But significantly the petitioners do not seek any direction against any of the respondents for acquisition of the entire extent in implementation of the agreement in Ext.P2. On the contrary, the W.P.C.No.23969/06 - 3 - prayers are only that the reference applications Exts.P4, P5 and P6 which were sought to be filed should be directed to be received. The stand of the Government is that the reference applications under Section 18 of the Act, Exts.P4, P5 and P6 were never filed or attempted to be filed by the petitioners as alleged. The further stand of the Government is that even if Exts.P4, P5 and P6 had been submitted within the statutory period after the passage of the award, then also it would not have been possible to make reference since the compensation amount was received by the petitioners without any protest. Significantly, there is no case for the petitioners that any particular amount was agreed by the Corporation to be paid to them as compensation for the acquired property in Ext.P2. 2. As already indicated the 2nd prayer in the Writ Petition is that a declaration be issued to the effect that Ext.P2 agreement does not stand in the way of the statutory rights available to the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ordinarily this court would have been inclined to grant the above declaration. But on the facts and circumstances which attend on this case, it is not possible to grant such a declaration. The petitioners are yet to produce any document which will show that they had actually submitted Exts.P4, P5 and P6 with the land acquisition authorities within the statutory W.P.C.No.23969/06 - 4 - time limit. Moreover, the version of the Government that the amount was received without protest is very highly probable. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no documentary evidence which will show that the amount was received with protest. Under these circumstances, I do not find any way to grant the reliefs sought for to the petitioners. Even as I dispose of the Writ Petition declining the reliefs sought for, I make it clear that if so advised the petitioners are free to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 4th respondent for damages, if any, which has been occasioned to them on account of the Corporation not honouring its commitment that the entire extent of 7.07 acres belonging to the petitioners will be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In the event of the petitioners filing any suit against the Corporation for damages on the above count, the time during which this Writ Petition was pending before this court and a further period of two months from today will be excluded from the reckoning for limitation invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE