IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 31667 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THATTANKANDY SAKEENA, W/O. MOOSA, RAMLA QUARTERS, MATTAM, MUZHAPPILANGAD,KANNUR DIST 2. KADINHIKANDI MOOSA, S/O. MOIDU, RAMLA QUARTERS, MATTAM, MUZHAPPILANGAD,KANNUR DIST BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (RAILWAYS), KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BASANT BALAJI FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R.1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 31667 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th June, 2008 JUDGMENT As amended, the prayer in this Writ Petition is that Ext.P7 order issued by the Land Acquisition Officer rejecting Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act be quashed. Ext.P1 application for reference was submitted by the petitioners within the statutory period of six weeks of the receipt of the Collector's notice. The reason on which Ext.P7 has been issued is that the original compensation was received by the petitioners without any protest. The petitioners case is that they had protested orally but the land acquisition officer did not record their protest. 2. I have heard the submissions of Mr.T.M.Abdul Latiff, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Mr.Latiff would submit that in Ext.P1 itself the petitioners have stated that they had received the compensation amount on 30.5.2000 with protest. The application for reference has been submitted by them within the statutory period. On coming to know that Ext.P1 is not being entertained on the ground that the petitioners have not lodged any protest, the petitioners readily submitted Ext.P2 petition before the District Collector accusing the land acquisition W.P.C.No.31667/07 - 2 - officer of dereliction of duty. Thereafter the petitioners had been moving post to pillar and on the advice of the local M.L.A. they moved even the Central Railway Minister since the acquisition was for doubling of the railway line. These circumstances will indicate that there was protest, according to the counsel. Learned counsel placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Industrial Development Corpn. v. Rishabh Ispat Ltd. [(2007) 2 SCC 248] and submitted that whether or not there was oral protest by the awardee at the time of receiving the original compensation is an aspect to be gathered from the attendant circumstances. The circumstances of this case strongly indicate that the petitioners had protested to the compensation determined by the land acquisition officer. The petitioners are very poor people and the acquired property had an extent of less than 9 cents only. 4. The learned Government Pleader would resist the submissions of Mr.Latiff. According to him, the very circumstance that the reference application was filed by them only days after receiving the award amount will indicate that the same had been filed only on second thoughts and the petitioners did not have any protest to the compensation determined. The Government Pleader further W.P.C.No.31667/07 - 3 - submitted that even if this court is inclined to show indulgence, the petitioners have to pay penalty for the inordinate delay which had been occasioned in the matter after their moving the petition before the District Collector in October, 2001 which is some six years. 5. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar and the principles emerging from the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by Mr.Latiff, I feel that this is a case where it can be gathered that the petitioners had lodged oral protest to the compensation determined by the awarding officer. Ext.P1 is concededly filed within the statutory period of six weeks of the receipt of the Collector's notice. Under these circumstances, I quash Ext.P7 and allow the Writ Petition. There will be a direction to the land acquisition officer to refer the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for the acquired properties of the petitioners to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery having jurisdiction at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. However, taking into account the inordinate delay which has been occasioned in the matter of the petitioners approaching this court, it is directed that the petitioners will not be eligible for the statutory interest payable on the compensation which W.P.C.No.31667/07 - 4 - may be redetermined by the court during the period from 11.10.2001 till 22.10.2007 under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE