IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8378 of 2007(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. ISAC KOSHY, THAZHETHIL, T.C.14/477, NANDAVANAM ROAD, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. KUNJAMMA KOSHY, THAZHETHIL, T.C.14/477, NANDAVANAM ROAD, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 5. CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD (PWD), PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 6. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WPC.No.8378/07 VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 7. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR), LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA FOR R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LATHA T. THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.8378/2007 APPENDIX PETITITIONERS EXHIBITS; EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.1.2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 27.1.2006 TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.2.2006 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.2.2006 TO THE 7TH RESPONENT. EXT.P5; COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2006 (1) KLT SN 38. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.3.2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 28.2.2006 ( 25.3.2006). EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.5.2006. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.5.2006. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.5.2006. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.8.2006. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.10.2006. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE NOTE FILE OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(A): COPY OF G.O. (RT.) 51/3/PWD DATED 15.9.2003 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.R6(B): COPY OF G.O. (RT) NO.209/07/PWD DATED 7.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.R6(C); COPY OF MAHAZAR DATED 5.5.2006 AND COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, ACQUIRED FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT WORK. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.8378 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance voiced by the petitioners whose properties were acquired at the instance of the 6th respondent Trivandrum Development Authority for widening of Nandavanam-Bakery Junction Road is two fold. Firstly, though the width of the road after widening was uniformly maintained at 11 meters, in front of the petitioners property, an additional width of 1.50 meters has also been taken with the result that at that portion alone the width of the road is increased to 12.50 meters. In the context of this allegation the petitioners pray that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents who include the State represented by the Secretary, LSGD-respondent No.2, District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram-respondent No.4-Chief Engineer- Kerala Road Fund Board(PWD)-respondent No.5 and 6th respondent TRIDA to confirm and maintain the uniform width of 11 meters upon widening the Nandavanam-Bakery Junction Road. In the same context there is a further prayer for issuance of a mandamus commanding the WPC.No.8378/07 2 respondents to give back possession of the excess land acquired and taken possession of from the petitioners. The other grievance of the petitioners is that the land acquisition officer did not pay compensation amount to them though all the documents necessary for establishing their title to the acquired property extending to .72 Ares were actually submitted before the 7th respondent-land acquisition officer. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the fourth respondent as well as by the sixth respondent to which the petitioners have filed a reply. I have heard the submissions of Sri.B.Raghunathan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.A.Jaleel, standing counsel for TRIDA and Smt.Latha Thankappan, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. 3. Drawing my attention to the pleadings raised, Sri.B.Raghunathan submitted that there is absolutely no justification for taking an extra width of 1.50 from the possession of the petitioners. A uniform width of 11 meters is to be maintained. He further submitted that the petitioners claimed title under the original title document standing in the name of the petitioners' father and also under WPC.No.8378/07 3 a registered will which had been executed bequeathing the property in favour of the petitioners. The original title document, the registered will as well as the original of the basic tax receipt will show that in the registers the property had been mutated into the names of the petitioners and that the claim of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners in possession is correct, were produced before the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent on perusing the original of the title document would return the original to the petitioners after directing them to produce a photocopy. The original of the will and the original of the basic tax receipt were retained. The will was later returned to the petitioners on application. The petitioners came to know later that instead of paying the amounts to them directly the 7th respondent has deposited the amount under section 31(2) as if the petitioners have not proved their title before the 7th respondent. 4. Learned standing counsel for the TRIDA would submit that the allegation that extra width has been acquired from the petitioners property is incorrect. Ext.R6(c) is the mahazer and sketch which will reveal that that only .72 Ares of land covered by the award WPC.No.8378/07 4 has been acquired. No additional property has been acquired from out of the petitioners' property and the allegation that in front of the petitioners' property alone the width of the road is 12.50 meters is without basis. The learned standing counsel further submitted that when the widened portion of the road is constructed, it will be ensured that the width of the road is 11 meters and that no portion of the petitioners' property not covered by the award will be utilised. I record the above submission and decline relief Nos. 1 and 2. But I do find genuineness in the grievance of the petitioners regarding non-payment of compensation directly to the petitioner. Though Smt.Latha Thankappan, learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners had not produced the original will, she would concede that the petitioners submission that the original will was returned to them on application submitted by them subsequent to passage of award is not incorrect. If that be so, the version of the petitioners that the original of the will had been produced is much more probable than the version of the government. It is not disputed by the Government Pleader that the original of the basic tax receipt showing that the property stands WPC.No.8378/07 5 mutated in the name of the petitioners and the petitioners are paying tax in their name is produced. It is also conceded that atleast a photocopy of the title document which stood stand in the name of the petitioners father is available. These in my opinion will be sufficient for convincing the land acquisition officer of the petitioners' title. Nobody else had claimed any interest in the property under acquisition. It should be remembered that land acquisition proceedings were initiated only against the petitioners in respect of the subject properties. The petitioners were dispossessed of their properties on 05/05/2006. The petitioners grievance that they have lost considerable amounts towards interest on the compensation amount on account of deposit of the amount in court is genuine. Petitioner filed Vakkalath Nama before the reference court in the reference under section 31(2) initiated by the 7th respondent on 03/03/2008. I am of the view that the petitioners should be paid interest on the total compensation amount under deposit at the rate of 9% for the period between 05-05-2006 and 03-03-2008. The respondents 1, 2, 4 ,6 and 7 are directed to pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.56,263/- to compensate the petitioners for the loss was WPC.No.8378/07 6 occasioned to them due to non-payment of the compensation amount to them directly by the 7th respondent. It is made clear that government can recover the amount from the 7th respondent or anybody else concerned after fixing the liability in accordance with law. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.8378/07 7