IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011/25TH MAGHA 1932 WPC.No. 431 of 2011 (D) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S) : --------------------- T.VIJAYAKUMARI AMMA, W/O.SIVADASAN, SIVA NIVAS, KUTTIVILAKAM, ATTINKUZHI, KAZHAKKUTTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043. BY SMT.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WPC.No. 431 of 2011 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : P1. : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08.09.2004. P2. : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08.09.2004. P3. : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 25672/08 DATED 07.10.2008. P4. : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.C 1179/10 DATED 24.09.2010. P5. : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.01.2008. P6. : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.01.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AMV C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.431 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the owner in absolute possession of 6.60 Ares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.18/13 and 15.50 Ares in block No.18 in Sy.No.204/11 of Attipra village in Thiruvananthapuram District, filed this Writ Petition with the prayers to direct the respondents to produce the files relating to LAC Nos.31/04 and 233/04 before this Court and to refer the matter to Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for adjudication under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The properties comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers were acquired from the petitioner for the purpose of development of Electronic Technology Park at Kazhakkoottom. In fact, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act would reveal that urgency clause was invoked by the respondents in the matter of said acquisition. The petitioner produced all the requisite documents to prove her title and entitlement to receive the amount of compensation and, admittedly, 80% of the compensation was given to the petitioner. The definite case of the petitioner is that on receipt of award under section 12(2) of the Act, she approached the office of the 2nd W.P.(C) NO.431/2011 2 respondent and had received the award amount under protest and on the same date, submitted applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act before the second respondent. According to the petitioner, on receipt of notice of award in LAC.No.31/04, she approached the 2nd respondent on 18.1.2005 and received the award amount under protest and submitted application for reference under section 18 of the Act at the time of receipt of the award amount. In respect of LAC.No.223/04, the award amount was received under protest on 31.1.2005 and the application for reference was also submitted on the same day, at the time of receipt of the award amount. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents to make reference under Section 18 of the Act, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.25672/2008. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment. It is evident from Ext.P3 that after perusing the files pertaining to the aforesaid acquisition and on finding that reference had already been made by the land acquisition officer to the Subordinate judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 27.12.2007, the said Writ Petition was disposed of. Even thereafter, no reference had actually been made. The reference had not reached the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram and that constrained the petitioner to file C.C.C 1179/2010 before this Court. However, taking note of the fact that files W.P.(C) NO.431/2011 3 pertaining to the acquisition were missing from the office of the land acquisition officer and in the absence of any material to show that Annexure I order therein was violated, this Court closed C.C.C 1179/2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P3 judgment and Exts.P1 and P2 applications submitted by the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Act, the respondents have not taken any step to make reference as requested through Exts.P1 and P2. It is to redress the said grievance that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. A statement has been filed in this Writ Petition on behalf of the respondents. It is admitted thereunder that advance possession of the properties of the petitioner comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers were taken in terms of the provisions under Section 17(4) of the Act on 8.10.2004 and subsequently, an award was passed on 4.1.2005. According to the respondents, notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act dated 7.11.2005 was served on the petitioner on 15.11.2005. It is the specific contention of the respondents that after the award, the petitioner had not made any application for reference. In this context, it is to be noted that while considering W.P.(C).No. 25672/2008, a learned Judge of this Court had perused the file pertaining to the aforesaid land acquisition and observed, as is obvious from the judgment in W.P.(C).No.25672 of 2008, W.P.(C) NO.431/2011 4 that at the request of the petitioner, a reference had been made by the land acquisition officer to the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram on 20.12.2007. The statement of the respondents would run counter to the definite finding in Ext.P3 judgment. The learned Government Pleader made available the records pertaining to the land acquisition in question. LAC NO.31/2004 and LAC No.223/2004 are the land acquisition cases in respect of properties acquired from the petitioner comprised in Block No.18 in Re-Sy.No.204/11 of Attipra village in Thiruvananthapuram District. At page No.37 of the file bearing No.K14-92890/2007 pertaining to LAC.No.31/2004 made available by the learned Government Pleader, it is stated thus: “I am sending herewith the relevant records in respect of A.S.No.2/2004-05 (LAC.No.31/04) for determination of enhancement compensation under section 18 of the LA Act. This case relates to the acquisition of 6.6 Ares of land for the use of Technopark from Re-Sy.No.204/11 of Attipra village. 173681/- has been passed as L.A compensation. Smt.Vijaya Kumari Amma has filed reference application under Section 18 of the L.A Act, claiming enhancement compensation. I therefore, request that the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark may please be impleaded as in interested parpty in this case and the case may kindly be examined and passed appropriate orders at the earliest”. This is a letter addressed to the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram W.P.(C) NO.431/2011 5 by the District Collector. As evident from the letter dated 27.12.2007, an amount of Rs.1,73,681/- was passed as compensation for land acquired from the petitioner having an extent of 6.60 Ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.180/13 of Attipra village. The latter portion of the same would reveal that the petitioner had, in fact, filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The respondents did not have a case that Rs.1,73,681/- is the 80% of the amount awarded to the petitioner. Admittedly, the said amount amount was awarded as compensation for acquisition of the property mentioned above. A similar letter bearing No.K14-92891/2007 dated 27.12.2007 at page No.35 of the file pertaining to LAC No.233/04 addressed to the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram by the District Collector reads thus: “I am sending herewith the relevant records in respect of AS No.2/2004-05 (LAC) No.233/06) for determination of enhancement of compensation under section 18 of the LA Act. This case relates to the acquisition of 15.50 Ares of land for the use of Technopark from Re- Sy.No.204/11 of Attipra village. 395385/-/- has been passed as L.A compensation. Smt.Vijaya Kumari Amma has filed reference application under Section 18 of the L.A Act, claiming enhancement compensation. I therefore, request that the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark may please be impleaded as in interested party in this case and the case may kindly be examined and passed appropriate orders at the earliest.” W.P.(C) NO.431/2011 6 It pertains to 15.5 cents comprised in Re.Sy.No.204/11 of Attipra village acquired from the petitioner. A scanning of the above referred letters would undoubtedly reveal the fact that the petitioner has filed reference application under Section 18 of the L.A Act. In fact, it is after perusing the said records that this Court, vide Ext.P3 judgment, observed as hereunder: “It is seen from the file that on the basis of application for reference submitted by the petitioner, references have already been made by the land acquisition officer to the subordinate judges court, Thiruvananthapuram on 27.12.2007.” 3. In the light of the said documents, I cannot uphold the contentions of the respondents that reference applications were not actually filed by the petitioner and that she had submitted application only while receiving 80% of the compensation. In this context, it is to be noted that the amounts referred to in the aforesaid documents are admittedly not 80% of the amount calculated prior to the passing of the award. At any rate, the aforesaid documents are self speaking. That apart, I am of the view that the respondents cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner had not submitted an application for reference and that on receipt of the application for reference, the references were not made by the land acquisition officer to the subordinate judges court in the light of Ext.P3 W.P.(C) NO.431/2011 7 judgment. Evidently, as per Ext.P3 judgment, this court made the observation that the petitioner had submitted applications for reference and based on the said applications references had already been made by the land acquisition officer to the Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuam on 27.12.2007. The respondents have allowed the said order to become final. Therefore, on that sole ground also, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner had not submitted any application for references after the passing of the award. As already noticed hereinbefore, the irresistible conclusion that could be arrived at after going through the entire documents pertaining to LAC.No.31/2004 and LAC.No.233/2004 is that the petitioner had actually submitted applications for reference under Section 18 of the L.A Act. In the said circumstances, the inaction on the part of the respondents or the laxity or lapse on their part cannot be a reason for denying the petitioner the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition. In view of the discussions above, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to transmit the relevant records, in accordance with law, to the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for adjudication of the issue under Section 18 of the L.A Act in respect of the W.P.(C) NO.431/2011 8 matters in LAC.No.31/2004 and LAC No.233/2004. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.431/2011 9 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010