IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31575 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.A.SADANANDAN, AGED 70 S/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT CHAMATHURUTHIL HOUSE, AKAPPARAMPU KARA, MEKKADU P.O., ALUVA TALUK,NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683589 2. MARY SADANANDAN,A GED 69 YEARS, W/O.C.A.SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT CHAMATHURUTHIL HOUSE, AKAPPARAMPU KARA, MEKKADU P.O.,ALUVA TALUK NEDUMABASSERRY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683589 BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LAND ACUQITION OFFICER, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)NO.III KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM DIST-PIN-683572 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTRATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001 4. KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOCIETY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683585 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31575 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are husband and wife. The land belonging to them was acquired for the purpose of Cochin International Airport. An award was passed way back on 20.5.1998 and the compensation was also paid over to them on 18.4.1998 and 29.7.1998. The petitioners did not complain about adequacy of the compensation and moved the Land Acquisition Officer to refer their claim for enhanced compensation to the court. Long thereafter, they moved the District Collector, Ernakulam, by submitting the original of Ext.P6 application seeking enhancement of compensation. In the alternative, they claimed employment in the Kochi International Airport. By Ext.P7 letter dated 21.7.2010, the District Collector informed the petitioners that the petitioners did not move the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute regarding the adequacy of the compensation to the Court, hence, no further amount can be paid to them by way of compensation. As regards employment assistance, the petitioners are informed that the employment assistance was provided only to those families from whom the land was taken over after negotiation. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P7 and seek payment of enhanced compensation and also other benefits including W.P.(C) No.31575 of 2010 2 Rehabilitation and Employment. 2. The award in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners was passed on 20.5.1998. The compensation amount was also paid to them simultaneously. More than 12 years have passed thereafter. The petitioners have admittedly not objected to the adequacy of the compensation or requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute regarding the adequacy of compensation to the Court. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that at this distance of time, the dispute regarding the adequacy of compensation cannot be referred to the Court. Further, the petitioners have not produced any material to show that their land was acquired subject to the condition that they will be rehabilitated or employment opportunity will be provided to their children. Admittedly, the petitioners have no issues, they are aged and therefore, they cannot claim employment. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. Further, even after 12 years, the petitioners did not move the Cochin International Airport and they moved the District Collector. The District Collector has no jurisdiction or authority to pass orders affecting the rights of the W.P.(C) No.31575 of 2010 3 Cochin International Airport. Therefore, the District Collector could not have decided the issue in favour of the petitioners. I, therefore, find no ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioners from invoking Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, if they are entitled to the said provision. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.