IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11404 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ XAVIER M.P., S/O PAILY, AGED 62 YEARS, MATTEKKATTU HOUSE, KARITHALA DESOM, PULLEPADY, KOCHI-35. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), COCHIN, CORPORATION, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, KICHI-19. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KERALA LTD, PALARIVATTOM. R2 & R3 BY SR.G.P. SHRI BASANT BALAJI R4 BY ADV. SHRI M.VIJAYAKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.11404 of 2008 G ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was the owner of 2.19 ares of land comprised in Sy.Nos. 380/2 and 380/3. The first respondent had issued a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of construction of a railway over bridge. Advance possession of the land belonging to the petitioner was taken after paying 80% of the estimated compensation. Land was taken possession on 2.1.2004. Grievance of the petitioner is that after taking advance possession of the land respondents are not taking any steps to complete the land acquisition proceedings. So he filed this Writ Petition for a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings lapsed. 2. In view of the principle laid down in Fr.Paul Chakiath v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 182) the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act is not applicable to cases in which advance possession of the land was taken after paying 80% of the estimated compensation. In this case the stand taken by the State is that the necessary funds are to be provided by the requisitioning authority which is the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation Kerala Ltd. But the stand taken by the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation Kerala Ltd. is that the funds are to be provided by the Corporation of Cochin. The fact remains, neither the requisitioning authority nor WP(C) No.11404/2008 2 the Corporation of Cochin is prepared to pay the balance amount. Respondents 1 and 2 have taken a stand that unless the requisitioning authority makes available the necessary funds, they will not be able to pay the compensation due to the petitioner. 3. Though the advance possession was taken as early as on 2.1.2004 the petitioner is not getting the balance compensation. This Court is not expected to resolve the dispute between the Cochin Corporation and Roads and Bridges Development Corporation Kerala Ltd. It is for them to resolve the dispute and find an early solution. I am of the view that though the land acquisition proceedings will not be lapsed the respondents cannot be allowed to postpone indefinitely the payment of balance compensation after taking possession of land from the petitioner. So a time limit has to be fixed within which the respondents will have to pass the award and pay the compensation to the petitioner. 4. Considering all aspects of the matter I am of the view that a time limit of six months from today can be granted to the respondents to finalise the acquisition proceedings. In case they fail to pass final award and pay the compensation the land acquisition proceedings shall stand quashed and respondents shall re-convey the property to the petitioner as and when he returns 80% of the amount already received without interest. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that more than four WP(C) No.11404/2008 3 years have elapsed after the passing of draft award, there is escalation of land value and the petitioner has also been put to much hardships, and hence, the respondents may be directed to pay adequate amount as damages or compensation. I do not think, it is the appropriate time to consider that aspect. In case the land is acquired and compensation paid, it is open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. He is entitled to raise such a contention in that application. I make it clear that in case the matter is referred the petitioner can raise all his contentions before the Civil Court who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. cks