IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27607 of 2003(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. PUTHEN VEETTIL, KUNHATHU, D/O.MOHAMMED YOUSUF, RAYIRIMANGALAM, TANUR PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KUTTIKKADAN VEETTIL HASSAN, S/O.MOHAMMED, RAYIRIMANGALAM, TANUR PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TELECOM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 5. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LA) TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. RAHNA, D/O. THAULAPPIL MOHAMMED ALI, BACKER MAHAL, THEYYALA ROAD, PANANGATTUR, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. SHAMLA, D/O.THAULAPPIL MOHAMMED ALI, BACKER MAHAL, THEYYALA ROAD, PANANGATTUR, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. WPC 27607/03 8. FATHIMA HOUSE, D/O.THAULAPPIL MOHAMMED ALI, BACKER MAHAL, THEYYALA ROAD, PANANGATTUR, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC, BSNL FOR R1 TO R3 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN FOR R4 & R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC NO.27607/03) PETITIONERS' EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 25.2.1999. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL DATED 21.12.1978. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.129/02 DATED 10.7.2002. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 13.9.2002. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ATTACHED TO THE REPORT DATED 13.9.2002. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 DATED 23.8.2003. RESPONDENTS EXTS.(RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3): EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE TO THE AWARD, REF.NO.11/2002 DATED 15.6.2002. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.7.2003 IN O.S.NO.129 OF 2002 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 10.7.2003 IN O.S.NO.129 OF 2002 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. ANNEXURE 1: SKETCH SHOWING THE LAND OWNED BY THE BSNL AND THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 27607 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 1st July, 2008 JUDGMENT Mr.T.Krishnanunni, Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners and Mr.C.S.Ramanathan, Standing Counsel for the B.S.N.L., the requisitioning authority have addressed me extensively. 2. My attention was drawn by the learned Senior Counsel to the definition of 'interested person' given in the Land Acquisition Act and also to the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.P.State Electricity Board v. Shiv K.Sharma (2005 SAR (Civil) 190), the judgment of this court in Mini K.Pai v. The District Collector (2007(2) KLJ 842) and also to an unreported decision of R.Bhaskaran,J. in O.P.Nos.5294/99 and 16549/99. 3. Mr.C.S.Ramanathan, Standing Counsel for the BSNL submitted that the Writ Petition has been instituted without any bonafides and he alleges that the same is result of a collusion between the petitioners and the awardees who have been impleaded subsequently as respondents 6, 7 and 8. Mr.Ramanathan however submitted that there will not be any serious objection in the 5th respondent being directed to construe Ext.P5 as an application for seeking reference to the question of the petitioners interest in the W.P.C.No.27607/03 - 2 - acquired property and share, if any, to which they may be entitled for in the award amount. 4. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the decisions cited at the Bar and the definition of 'interested person' under the Land Acquisition Act. I am of the view that the petitioners claim that being holders of an easement of way over the property, they would qualify as interested persons for the purpose of land acquisition proceedings has some merit. If that be so, it has to be noticed that the award in this case have been passed without notice to the petitioners. To that extent the award is vitiated. At the same time at this distance of time when possession has been taken and the telephone exchange building has been constructed, it will not be proper to set aside the award. It will suffice, in my opinion, if the competent civil court is enabled to consider the extent of the petitioners' interest in the property and in the compensation awarded to respondents 6 to 8. Following the decision taken by this court in O.P.Nos.5294/99 and 16549/99 and applying the principles laid down in the various judgments which are referred to in that judgment, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition issuing the following directions: W.P.C.No.27607/03 - 3 - The 5th respondent will treat Ext.P5 as an application for reference submitted by the awardees in respect of the award which has been passed in this case without notice to them, and references will be made considering Ext.P5, to the competent civil court both under Section 18 and also under Section 30. The reference court on receiving the reference from the 5th respondent will register separate references under Section 18 and also under Section 30 treating them as valid references made within the period of limitation. In the reference under Section 18 the question of determination of the correct compensation payable for the acquired properties will be decided. In the reference under Section 30 the reference court will determine the value of the interest, if any, which the petitioners herein were having over the acquired property and will apportion the original compensation between the awardees, i.e. respondents 6 to 8 and the writ petitioners. Appropriate orders/directions will be issued to respondents 6, 7 and 8 herein regarding payment of the petitioners share of the original compensation which has been already received by them. It is needless to mention that the reference under Section 18 should be answered on the basis of the findings of the reference court regarding the value of the petitioners interest over W.P.C.No.27607/03 - 4 - the property. Needful in compliance with the above directions shall be done by the 5th respondent within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the reference court also will ensure that the references are disposed of at the earliest. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE