IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 34687 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. T.J. JOSEPH, THERUVIL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. LUCY THOMAS, KOTTARATHIL, PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. ROY CHACKO SRI. K.C. VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CHAIRMAN, EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT DIVISION, PONKUNNAM, KANJIRAPPALLY. 7. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAY), PONKUNNAM, KANJIRAPPALLY. R1 TO R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. SANILKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 12372 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 34687 of 2009(E) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.8.2006 IN WPC NO. 19891/2006. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DLPC MINUTES DATED 20.7.2007. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.3.2008 IN WPC NO. 36642/2007. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 23.6.2009 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FILED ON 5.8.09. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2009 REJECTING P4 APPLICATION. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.9.2009 FROM THE EXE.ENGINEER KSTP, PONKUNNAM. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.9.2009 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BY HIS COUNSEL UNDER RTI ACT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.10.2009 TO EXT. P7. EXT.P9 : COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AS PER P7 APPLICATION. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE PAMPHLETS CIRCULATED BY KSTP. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE POLICY DOCUMENT PUBLISHED BY PWD. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3578/2003 OF PALA SRO. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE SECTION 6 DECLARATION DATED 3.2.2006 PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.11.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6. EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.11.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009-E & 12372/2010-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T In W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 there are two petitioners and in W.P.(C).No.12372/2010 also the petitioners are two in number. 2. The respondents initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring various items of properties including that of the petitioners for the Punalur-Muvattupuzha Highway Project. The notification under Section 4(1)of the Land Acquisition Act is dated 01/12/2004 and the declaration under Section 6 is dated 03/02/2006. 3. The project is one financed by the World Bank and implemented by the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP). The land owners were offered replacement value if they are viable for negotiated price. 4. The first petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 along with another approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.19891/2006 wherein this Court by Ext.P1 Judgment directed the competent authority to take a decision in the matter. In fact, the decision had to be taken in the light of the claim for the replacement value. Thereafter, discussions took place at the District level and Ext.P2 is W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010 -:2:- the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the District Level Purchase Committee Chaired by the District Collector. The table therein contains the categorisation of lands, and the land value fixed as on 20/07/2007. 5. The said minutes had to be approved by the State Level Empowered Committee. Since further delay occurred, the said petitioners filed W.P.(C).No.36642/2007 which was disposed of by Ext.P3 Judgment wherein this Court directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein to place the matter before the Empowered Committee and to take a decision as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Judgment. Thereafter, the petitioners were waiting for the grant of reliefs. In between, the Land Acquisition Officer also passed awards and in the light of the expectation that the Empowered Committee will be fixing proper compensation as replacement value, the petitioners did not, at that point of time, filed applications for reference. It is averred in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 that the first petitioner received land acquisition award amounts without protest. Still thereafter they waited for another one year. No action was taken and reference application submitted by the second petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 was rejected as submitted beyond the period provided. W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010 -:3:- 6. Finally, the first petitioner in W.P.(C). No.34687/2009 got information with regard to the replacement value only by Ext.P6 communication dated 08/09/2009. He was directed to receive the balance amount of compensation. Reference is made to G.O.(Rt) No.1253/08/PWD dated 04/08/2008 therein. 7. When the details of the fixation of amounts were sought, Ext.P9 was communicated with copy of the micro-plan of 89 title holders of Lalam Village approved by Empowered Committee and copy of the category-wise list of each property. 8. The petitioners thereafter filed various representations before the Chief Secretary to Government who is the Chairman of the Empowered Committee pointing out that the replacement value is fixed two years back and, therefore, the value now offered is not in tune with the current market value of the property. Accordingly, it is requested that a refixation taking into account the promise made may be done. Exts.P14 and 15 are the said representations in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 and Ext.P8 is the representation submitted by the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.12372/2010. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010 -:4:- the petitioners submitted that the scheme framed by the respondents really obliges them to consider various aspects provided therein. Copy of the Scheme has been provided as Ext.P11 in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 . My attention was invited to paragraphs 2.3 and 2.6 of the said scheme. Relying upon paragraph 2.3 it is contended that the replacement value has to be fixed by considering it as equivalent to the amount for purchase of property. Therefore, the amount that is required to purchase such properties will have to be fixed as the replacement value. Going by paragraph 2.6 it is stated that even before the possession is taken, the compensation and other benefits will be disbursed. Paragraph 5.2 also gives details of the manner in which compensation has to be fixed. It is therefore submitted that the petitioners have entered into negotiations on the legitimate expectation that they will be given the maximum benefit, so that they will be able to get a suitable price which will be equivalent to the price for purchase of the equivalent extent of property, prevalent in the locality concerned. 10. It is submitted that the delay in the matter has really put the petitioners in handicap since they did not file reference applications also in time expecting payment of proper compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer has W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010 -:5:- filed a statement. There is no counter affidavit filed by the Government. The statement filed by the seventh respondent in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 does not throw any light as to how the compensation amount has been arrived at as per the package. The counter affidavit of the sixth respondent also does not give the principle and the basis under which the amount has been fixed by the Empowered Committee. It is also not evident whether the Empowered Committee has taken into consideration all the aspects including the delay caused in fixing the amount and offering payment. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P12 is a copy of the Sale Deed (produced in W.P. (C).No.34687/2009) which reflects the land value as on 30/12/2003. It is submitted that the amount by way of consideration paid is more than the land value now fixed. All these are matters for the Empowered Committee to consider. 12. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the representations Exts.P14 and P15 in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 and Ext.P8 in W.P.(C). No.12372/2010 on its merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners will also be entitled to produce whatever materials relied on, at the W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010 -:6:- time of hearing. Appropriate orders will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009 & 12372/2010 -:7:- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.34687/2009-E & 12372/2010-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 O R D E R It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners in both the writ petitions excluding the second petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34687/2009 have received the replacement value. Post after one month for hearing. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms