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. 39798 of 2003(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.V.ISAC, KOORAN HOUSE, OPP. UNITED CLUB, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., KERALA 680 308. 2. SARITHA ISAC D/O. K.V.ISAC, KOORAN HOUSE, OPP. UNITED CLUB, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., KERALA-680 308 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.POULOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT LTD., G.C.D.A. COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.39798/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS; EXT.P1; COPY OF THE CERTIFICTE ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.III K.I.A. NEDUMBASSERY, DATED 26.12.2002. EXT.P2; COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 15.10.2003 TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. NEDUMBASSERY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS; EXT.R1(A); COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.1258/1997 FILED BY SRI. MATHEW VARGHESE AND ANOTHER DATED 5.6.1998. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 39798 of 2003 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June , 2008 JUDGMENT The property belonging to the first petitioner was acquired for the purpose of respondent the Kochi International Airport and being dissatisfied by the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the issue was referred at the instance of the first petitioner to the sub court. The Sub Court answering the reference awarded enhanced compensation, which was received by the first petitioner. According to the first petitioner, it was not land alone which was acquired from his possession, but residential building also acquired. It is claimed that in respect of person whose residential buildings are acquired, there is an agreement between the owners and the respondent that such persons will be allotted six cents of land by way of rehabilitation and one member each from the families of such person will be provided with employment. The prayers in the writ petition are that the second petitioner, who is educationally qualified daughter of the first petitioner, be provided with a suitable employment and that direction be issued to the respondent to allot six WPC No.39798/2003 2 cents of land to the first petitioner. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent authority. It is contended therein that the agreement between respondent and persons, who have been deprived of their residential houses on account of the acquisition, was only that if they are ready for parting with ownership of the properties in favour of the respondent on a negotiated basis, they will be provided with six cents of land for rehabilitation. Such benefit was never agreed to be extended to persons who are not agreeable for negotiated purchase by the respondent of their properties, but approach the reference court for enhancement and receive enhanced compensation. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R1(a) judgment of the Division Bench of this court is also produced. 3. I have heard the submissions of Sri. P.M.Poulose, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel for the respondent. Sri.Poulose submits that any agreement, which forbids an awardee in land acquisition proceedings from approaching the reference court, will be void since parties are not entitled to contract out of the statute. Initiating reference under Section 18 is a statutory right and any agreement in derogation of such a right is only to be ignored by this court. Six WPC No.39798/2003 3 cents of land have been allotted to every persons who were dispossessed of their residential buildings in connection with acquisition for the respondent Air Port. That benefit should be extended to the first petitioner. As for the second relief that an employment be provided to the second petitioner, Sri.Poulose submitted that the same has already been granted . Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner who appears to be conscious of his statutory rights under Section 18 is unable to show the statutory basis for his claim for allotment of six cents of land. There is no statutory basis for the claim. Allotment of six cents of land can only be a concession. The respondent authority decided in its wisdom to extend concession only to those persons who were prepared to give away their properties for a price fixed on by negotiation between the petitioners and the respondent. This is not the situation in the petitioners' case. The petitioner was an awardee of reasonable compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer which was enhanced considerably by the reference court. Having received enhanced compensation from the reference court, the petitioners are not entitled to insist that six cents of land also should be provided. The counsel placed strong reliance on Annexure R1(a) judgment. WPC No.39798/2003 4 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar, I am of the view that the issue is settled by Ext.R1(a) judgment. In view of Ext.R1(a) judgment and on first principle also, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to insist that they should be provided with six cents of land over and above the compensation awarded by the Land acquisition Officer as re-fixed by this court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second petitioner has already been employed by the respondent is recorded. The writ petition will stand disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk