IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 26041 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.B.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS, KURUNGATT, THAIKKARA, KEEZHILLAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), COCHIN CORPORATION, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-19. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. 4. THE MAYOR, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KOCHI – 682 011. ADDL. 5. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KOCHI – 682 011. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 RESPECTIVELY AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1431/2008 DATED 4.2.2008) W.P.(C) 26041/2007 : 2 : ADDL. 6. ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KERALA LTD., PALARIVATTORM, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R6 AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO. 14025/2007 DATED 15.2.2008) R1,R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYA KUMAR, SC, RBDCK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WP.(C) 26041/2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DECLARATION PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.6.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY COCHIN CORPORATION DATED 26.12.2000. EXT.R4(b) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF COMMUNICATION OF THIS RESPONDENT DATED 7.9.2007 //true copy// P.A. To Judge. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26041 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th February, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of 0.0041 Hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.478/2 of Ernakulam, which is sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of Railway over Bridge. Notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was published. Advance possession of the land belonging to the petitioner was taken after paying 80% of the estimated compensation to the petitioner. The land was taken possession on 24.9.2003. Thereafter, respondents are not taking any steps to complete the acquisition. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a declaration that the entire land acquisition proceedings have lapsed, on account of the provisions contained in Section 11A of the Act. 2. Section 11A of the Act prescribes the time limit within which the land acquisition officer has to pass an award after the publication of declaration. Section further enjoins that if no award is passed within the time limit, the entire land acquisition proceedings will W.P.(C) No.26041/2007 2 lapse. But that provision is not applicable to cases, when the advance possession of land was taken after paying 80% of the estimated cost. (See Paul Chakkiyar v. State of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 182). According to the Government, the requisitioning authority is the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation, and it will have to provide necessary funds. The stand taken by the requisitioning authority is that the amount for acquisition is to be met by the Corporation of Kochi. But the Cochin Corporation has taken a stand that they are not the requisitioning authority and they have no liability to make available any fund. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, had taken a stand that unless the requisitioning authority makes available the funds, they will not be able to pay the compensation to the petitioners. It is also submitted that a draft award was passed by the first respondent as early as on 18.11.2004, which was approved by the 2nd respondent, District Collector, but on account of the paucity of funds, no final award could be passed. It is submitted that advance possession was taken on 2.1.2004. I am of the view that it is not for this Court to resolve the dispute between the Corporation of Cochin and the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation. It is for the W.P.(C) No.26041/2007 3 respondents to resolve their dispute and find an early solution. Even though the land acquisition proceedings will not lapse, that does not mean that the respondents can postpone indefinitely the payment of compensation, after taking possession of land of the petitioner, that too, after paying 80% of the estimated compensation. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that a time limit has to be fixed within which time, the respondents will have to pass an award and pay compensation to the petitioner. 4. Considering all aspects of the matter, a time limit of six months from today can be granted to the respondents. In case they fail to pay the compensation to the petitioner, the entire land acquisition proceedings will stand quashed and the respondents shall re-convey the property to the petitioner, as and when he returns 80% of the amount already received, without any interest. It is further made clear that in case failure on the part of the respondents to pass the final award and pay the compensation due to the petitioner within the time limit, they will have to re-convey the land to the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.26041/2007 4 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that more than four years have elapsed after the draft award, there is escalation of the price of the land, and the petitioner has also been put to much hardships, and hence, the respondents may be directed to pay adequate amount as damages or compensation. I do not think, it is the appropriate time, to consider that aspect. In case, the land is acquired and compensation paid, it is open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 18 of the Act. He is entitled to raise such a contention in that petition. I make it clear that in case the matter is referred, petitioner can raise his contention before the Civil Court, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.