IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17678 of 2007(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SUKUMARAN K.K., S/O. LATE MEENAKSHI AMMA, KODIATH HOUSE, PALLIKARA NEELESHWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. GOKULDAS K.K., S/O.LATE PRAVEENA, THAYNERI, PAYYANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.17678/07 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 29-5-1984 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17-1-90 FILED UNDER SECTION 28A EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C 441/2005 ISSUED BY R3 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22-2-2006 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER FROM THE THIRD RESPONDENT ON 11-5-2007 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23-8-05 FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER. /True copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.17678 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Prima facie I notice an element of genuineness in the grievance voiced by the petitioners. The first petitioner is the son and the legal heir of Smt.K.K.Meenakshy Amma and the second petitioner is the son and legal heir of one Praveena who was the daughter of Smt.Meenakshy Amma. 0.3157 hectare of property in Survey No. 209/6 of Ramanthali Village belonging to Smt.Meenakshy Amma was acquired for the purposes of naval academy and Ext.P1 award notice was issued to Smt.Meenakshy Amma. Smt.Meenakshy Amma did not seek a reference under Section 18. But after Smt.Meenakshy Amma died, Smt.K.K.Praveena, Meenakshy Amma's daughter, filed an application under Section 28A for re-determination of the correct compensation for the acquired properties on the basis of court judgment in L.A.A.No.186/1987 of the Sub Court, Payyannur as Ext.P2. Ext.P2 application was rejected by the land acquisition officer by Ext.P5 order on the reason that the claim of Smt.Praveena in Et.P2 WPC.No.17678/07 2 that her properties were acquired for the naval academy is not supported by records maintained in the land acquisition office. It appears that Ext.P5 order was not communicated to Smt.Praveena who passed away in the meanwhile. Upon Smt.Praveena's demise her legal heirs Smt.K.K.Reena, K.K.Gokuldas, K.K.Pradeep Kumar etc. filed an application seeking their impleadment in Ext.P2 proceedings. In the meanwhile one K.K.Sukumaran, son of Smt.Meenakshy Amma, submitted Ext.P4- a fresh application which purports to be under Section 28A. 2. The following are the prayers in the writ petition; i) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondent 2 and 3 to dispose of Exts.P2 and P4 applications submitted by the petitioners within a time frame. ii) Quash Ext.P5. 3. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit resisting the prayers and refuting the averments in the writ petition. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit reiterating their contentions. 4. Heard both sides. Learned Government Pleader submited WPC.No.17678/07 3 that Ext.P4 application has not been received by the land acquisition officer and that at any rate Ext.P4 cannot be construed as a valid application under Section 28A. Since no court judgment is seen relied on and no court judgment is produced also, I have no difficulty in accepting the submission. As regards Ext.P5, the learned Government Pleader submits that though it may be true that Ext.P5 was not communicated to Smt.K.K.Praveena, Ext.P5 was actually communicated to the advocate through whom Smt.Praveena had submitted Ext.P2. I find no material produced on the basis on which it can be held that the present petitioners are having information regarding Ext.P5 earlier. Apparently Ext.P2 application under Section 28 A was liable to be entertained and disposed of by the land acquisition officer on its merits. Ext.P2 is rejected on the ground that the claim of Smt.Praveena in Ext.P2 that her property was acquired is not supported by records. I have no difficulty in accepting the case of the petitioners that in paragraph 1 of Ext.P2 was referring to her mother's property which was the subject matter of Ext.P1 award notice. Thus Ext.P2 could have been considered by the land acquisition officer WPC.No.17678/07 4 as an application submitted by Smt.Praveena as legal heir of her mother Meenakshy Amma who had passed away after receiving the award notice. Since that is the only reason on which Ext.P2 has been rejected, I am of the view that Ext.P2 should be considered on its merits treating it as an application submitted by Smt.Praveena in her capacity as legal heir of her mother Meenakshy Amma. 3. Therefore, I quash Ext.P5 and direct the land acquisition officer to reconsider Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioners and also to all the legal heirs of deceased Meenakshy Amma whose names and addresses are given in Ext.P4 produced along with the writ petition. It is made clear that Ext.P2 need be treated by the land acquisition officer as a valid application only if it is seen that the court judgment produced along with Ext.P2 pertains to a case relating to acquisition under the very same Section 4(1) notification and Ext.P2 has been filed within the statutory period of that court judgment. In other words, only if it is found that the court judgment is relevant and that the application has been filed within the statutory period , Ext.P2 need be considered on merits. WPC.No.17678/07 5 Orders and directions in compliance with the above directions will be passed by the land acquisition officer at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving copy of this judgment. I find that the learned Government Pleader is justified in making submission that the Government should not be made to lose on account of the delay which has been caused in the matter and that the petitioners and the other legal heirs of Smt.Meenakshy Amma were not very deligent in prosecuting the matter and therefore the Government should be exonerated from the obligation of paying statutory interest at the rates mentioned in Section 34 on the redetermiend compensation if it is ultimately found that Ext.P2 is a valid application. It is therefore made clear that even if Ext.P2 is found to be a valid application, the awardees pursuant to Ext.P2 will not be entitled for statutory interest under Section 34 of the Act on the award amount for the period from 31-03-2001 till the date of filing of the writ petition -06/06/2007. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.17678/07 6