IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 27483 of 2002(V) ----------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. E.T.VASUDEVAN NAIR, S/O. C.DAMODARAN NAIR, 9/410, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 2. P.A.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. P.S.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, PARVATHY NILAYAM, 9/421, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 3. M.P.GOVINDANKUTTY, S/O. K.GOPALAN NAIR, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 4. M.VASUDEVAN, S/O. M.P.NETHRAN BHATATHIRIPAD, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 5. M.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O. K.MADHAVA MENON, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 6. K.V.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. V.KESHAVANKUTTY NAIR, `BASURA', VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 7. P.SOMASUNDARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, 9/412, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 8. P.RAJA CHANDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, 9/418, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 9. REMA KRISHNAMOORTHY, W/O. A.R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 10. V.P.GOVINDAN, S/O. M.P.GOPALA PISHARADY, "GOPIKA", VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 11. DENNIS THOMAS, S/O. A.F.THOMAS, 9/385, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 12. R.THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O. M.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 13. P.SUSHEELA, W/O. K.RAMACHANDRAN, `SREE SAILAM', VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. 14. A.RAJAN, S/O. K.NARAYANAN, VARTHA NAGAR, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, REGIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,SC.KSHB THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NOS.46687 & 46688 OF 2002 IN OP.NO.27483/2002-V DISMISSED 11.2.2008. SD/= P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN LAA.NO.328/1986 DTD 7.6.1995. EXT.P2 COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION IN LAR.NO.10/1984. EXT.P3 COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND DEMAND NOTICE DTD 5.1.2002. /TRUE COPY/ cl P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.27483 OF 2002-V -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are allotees of lands in Varthanagar Housing Colony at Palakkad. The lands for setting up a housing colony for working journalists at Palakkad was acquired pursuant to the notification published on 4.12.1979. Advance possession of the land was taken on 9.5.1980. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 1.7.1983 fixing the land value at Rs.762/= per cent. The Sub Court, Palakkad enhanced the land value to Rs.1110/= per cent by judgment delivered on 25.1.1986. At the instance of the land owners, appeals were filed in this Court as L.A.A.Nos.324, 328 and 336/1998. By Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 7.6.1995 a Division Bench of this Court enhanced the land value from Rs.1100/= per cent to Rs.2000/= per cent. This Court also held that the land owners will be entitled to the benefit of Section 23 (1A) of the Act, solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced land value and also on the market value originally awarded, interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from 4.12.1979 to 9.5.1980 and thereafter at 15% per annum. The O.P.NO.27483/2002 . 2 petitioners allege that plots were allotted to them during the period from 1984 to 1986 and that even at the time of allotment, they had deposited Rs.4,000/= per cent towards the land value. The petitioners have in this original petition alleged with specific reference to Smt. Saraswathi, one among the land owners, that even the compensation payable as per the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was not fully paid and only a sum of Rs.60,396/= was paid to her notwithstanding the availability of funds. The petitioners have stated in the original petition that the Board was very slow in paying the land value to the land owners, as a result of which, interest accumulated. The essence of the grievance projected by the petitioners in this original petition is that on account of the laxity on the part of the Board and its officials, they have been called upon to pay exorbitant amounts towards the land value. The petitioners have in this original petition sought for the following reliefs. “i. declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay any more amount to the 1st respondent and also declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay any interest on any amount to the respondents after 7.9.1995 on account of the delay caused by the respondents thereafter; and ii. issue a writ of mandamus, any other O.P.NO.27483/2002 . 3 appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to issue title deeds to the petitioners; and iii. issue a writ of certiorari any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P3, the additional demand made by the 1st respondent dated 5.1.2002 issued to the petitioners as it is opposed to public policy and violative of the Hire Purchase Act & Contact Act, and iv. issue a writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to furnish a fresh statement of accounts and demand as due on 7.9.1995”. 2. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the averment in Paragraph 2 of the original petition that only part payment was made to one among the land owners is not seen disputed. However, the Board has stated in the counter affidavit that there was no negligence or delay on the part of the Board in effecting payment to the land owners and that on the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the Board, the petitioners are liable to pay the enhanced land value, development charges, supervision charges and also attendance charges to the Board. O.P.NO.27483/2002 . 4 3. I heard Smt. S. Chithra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. M. Ramachandran Nair, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Board. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended with reference to the pleadings in the original petition and the absence of a specific denial in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that there has been laxity on the part of the Board in applying the money paid by the petitioners towards payment of the land value to the land owners. The learned counsel contended that the petitioners are therefore entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Board contended that on the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the Board, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this original petition. According to him, the Board had disbursed the amount of compensation payable to the land owners using the money deposited by the petitioners and also the money raised by the Board from other sources. The learned standing counsel contended that when the allotment was made to the petitioners, the land value had only been tentatively fixed and that the final amount payable to the land owners O.P.NO.27483/2002 . 5 can be arrived at only after claims for enhanced compensation are finally decided, the cost incurred for prosecuting various legal proceedings, the cost of works, amenities and other items are finally determined. The learned standing counsel also contended that the demand in Ext.P3 is for the additional amount payable by the petitioners as on the date of Ext.P3. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. Though there appears to be some force in the contention raised by the petitioners that even the land value originally awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was not paid in full to Smt. Saraswathi, one among the land owners, I am inclined to take the view that the dispute raised by the petitioners cannot properly be adjudicated upon in this original petition. An adjudication of the various contentions raised by the petitioners involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact. The date on which the land owners were paid the compensation etc will have to be proved by cogent documentary evidence. In such circumstances, I decline jurisdiction and dismiss the original petition reserving liberty with the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings in the competent civil court. Needless to say, the petitioners will be free to raise all contentions including the O.P.NO.27483/2002 . 6 contentions raised in this original petition in such civil proceedings. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl O.P.NO.27483/2002 . 7 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.27483 OF 2002-V JUDGMENT 11th February, 2008. O.P.NO.27483/2002 . 8