High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-26Writ petitions allowed with directions to file ...

Dr. T.A Alexander v. State of Kerala & Others; K.S. Vijayan & Sheela v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 25022/2021 and 26339/2021

Neutral Citation:-

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-11-26
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed with limited latitude. The court directs the petitioners to file appropriate Ext.P1 applications before the District Collector, who or an empowered authority shall consider them after hearing the petitioners and KMRL, and pass an order with necessary action expeditiously, but not later than two months from receipt of the judgment copy. The District Collector is free to consider KMRL's suggestions and must proceed to determine the balance extents in light of the peculiar facts, so as to avoid waste land and give effect to the acquisition.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed with directions to file Ext.P1 before District Collector; District Collector to consider and decide after hearing, with an overall time limit of two months from receipt of judgment copy; liberty to KMRL to present suggestions before final order is passed; aim to prevent wasteland and give effect to acquisition as expeditiously as possible within the statutory framework.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. T.A Alexander
K.S. Vijayan
Sheela

Respondents

State of Kerala
District Collector, Ernakulam
Land Acquisition Officer (Special Tahsildar), LA No.1, Kochi Metro Rail Project
Kochi Metro Rail Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• C.P. Wilson Rose Michael

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Jaju Babu (Sr.)
• M.U. Vijayalakshmi
• Aswin Sethumadhavan (Sr. GP)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions, Nos. 25022/2021 and 26339/2021, arise from claims of land acquired for the Kochi Metro project where the buildings elevated on the acquired land have been taken over, but a small extent of land surrounding the buildings remains in the petitioners' possession. The petitioners allege that despite final awards and possession, the residual tracts have been left unused, effectively turning them into wastelands with no utility. They rely on Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and particularly the broader principle from the Kerala High Court’s full bench decision in Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala, that when a building is acquired, the land on which it stands ought to be acquired as well. They seek that Ext.P1 notifications be considered and disposed of by the competent authorities so that the balance extents may be acquired and integrated with the already acquired property, rendering the land useful again. The respondents contend that since acquisition is complete, Ext.P1 cannot ordinarily be entertained; however, they offer that the District Collector may consider representations if the court wishes. The judge, noting the peculiar facts, grants limited latitude, directing the District Collector to entertain appropriate applications after hearing parties and KMRL, proceeding expeditiously and within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine: When a building is acquired, the land on which it stands ought to be acquired as well (Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala, 2008 (1) KLT 6).
Judicial principle: Writ courts may grant limited latitude in peculiar factual circumstances to facilitate relief while respecting statutory constraints.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that although the buildings on their lands have been acquired for the Kochi Metro project, a small extent of land surrounding the structures remains. They submit Ext.P1 under Section 94 of the 2013 Fair Compensation Act to have the balance land acquired, arguing that the residual extents have become useless wasteland. Relying on Saramma Itticheriya, they urge that land under a structure must be acquired along with the building. They seek expeditious consideration of Ext.P1 and preservation of rights with due hearing for all stakeholders, including KMRL.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest that once acquisition is complete, Ext.P1 cannot be entertained as Section 94 covers buildings, not lands. They propose that representations to the District Collector can be considered, with hearing and KMRL involvement, for a decision on the balance extents. They emphasize statutory limits on judicial interference and the need for orderly procedure, while acknowledging the public interest in avoiding wasteland.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Saramma Itticheriya v. State of Kerala	2008 (1) KLT 6	Positive	Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that land on which a building stands should be acquired when the building is acquired.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. T.A Alexander v. State of Kerala & Others; K.S. Vijayan & Sheela v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 25022 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** DR.T.A ALEXANDER AGED 73 YEARS S/O. T.K.ALEXANDER, THOTTUMUGAM HOUSE, NILAMPATHINJAMUGAL, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. C.P.WILSON ROSE MICHAEL(K/000718/2002) ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682032. 3 THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR), LA NO.1, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030. 4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD., 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI-682011. BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD. SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN- SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).26339/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C)NOS.25022 & 26339/2021 2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 26339 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** 1 K.S.VIJAYAN AGED 71 YEARS S/O.SANKARAN, VIJAYA APARTMENT NO.34/378, PADIVATTAM, EDAPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. 2 SHEELA, W/O.K.S.VIJAYAN, VIJAYA APARTMENT NO.34/378, PADIVATTAM, EDAPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADVS. C.P.WILSON ROSE MICHAEL ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682020. 3 THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (SPECIAL TAHSILDAR), LA NO.1, KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030. 4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD., 8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI682011. BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD. SHRI.ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).25022/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **WP(C)NOS.25022 & 26339/2021 3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in these two cases – which are being heard together on the account of the analogues factual circumstances presented – are stated to be persons whose lands have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Kochi Metro, on the requisition of the 4[th] respondent – Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL). 2. The petitioners' grievance is that, even though the building standing on the properties had been fully acquired, the land on which it is situated has not been so; and therefore, that they have been forced to prefer Ext.P1 application in both cases, invoking the provisions of Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“Fair Compensation Act” for short). They allege that, however, the same had not been even considered, while the final Awards had been issued. 3. Smt.Rose Michael – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, explained her clients' grievances, saying that even though the acquisition ## **WP(C)NOS.25022 & 26339/2021 4** has been completed and the entire building and land taken over, there is a remaining small extent of property in both cases, which has become useless and rendered as wasteland. She submitted that it is, therefore, that her clients have approached the competent Authority, through Ext.P1, seeking that the said extents also be acquired. She, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P1 in both these cases be directed to be taken up and disposed of without any further delay. 4. In response Sri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.M.U.Vijayalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the KMRL, submitted that, as per the petitioners' pleadings and submissions, the acquisition is now complete and only a small extent of land is remaining in their possession. She submitted that, therefore, if the petitioner require the said extents also to be acquired, then it is a matter to be decided by the District Collector or the Tahsildar concerned and that the KMRL is willing to make suggestions before the said Authority, to extent practically feasible, ## **WP(C)NOS.25022 & 26339/2021 5** so to enable the petitioner to get some relief. 5. Shri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents, submitted that since the acquisition is now complete, Ext.P1 cannot be entertained particularly because Section 94 of the “Fair Compensation Act” deals only with the building and not with the land. He submitted that, however, if this Court is so inclined, the petitioners can be given an opportunity of making an appropriate representation before the 2[nd] respondent - District Collector, which Authority can thereafter consider the same after hearing them, as also the KMRL; and then take a final decision as to the acquisition of the balance extents of property left with them, so that their grievances can be allayed. 6. In reply, Smt.Rose Michael, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied upon a full bench judgment of this Court in _**Saramma Itticheriya v.**_ _**State of Kerala [2008 (1) KLT 6],**_ to contend that when the building is acquired, the land on which it is situated would also required to be mandatorily ## **WP(C)NOS.25022 & 26339/2021 6** acquired; but alleged that in these cases, this has been deliberately not done. She submitted that, therefore, the District Collector or the KMRL is now obligated to consider the plea of her clients affirmatively, without any further delay. 7. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that, normally, this Court cannot direct any Authority to make an acquisition. However, in the peculiar facts of these cases, I am certain that the petitioners must be given a limited latitude because, if their submissions are right, then very small extents of property which are left in their possession would be rendered completely useless and without any purpose in future. In the afore circumstances, I allow these writ petitions, leaving liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate applications before the 2[nd] respondent – District Collector, which Authority or the Authority whom he may delegate as per law, will consider the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, as also the competent officials of the KMRL; thus culminating in an appropriate ## **WP(C)NOS.25022 & 26339/2021 7** order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not considered the various suggestions made by Shri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the KMRL and that the said Authority is left liberty to present them before the District Collector, while the afore exercise is completed, so that the petitioners can get some relief as per law, taking note of the fact that the balance extents of their land would otherwise become a virtual waste land. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** **MC/26.11** **WP(C)NOS.25022 & 26339/2021 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25022/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 5.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF AWARD NO.117/2021 DATED 28.7.2021 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF TAKING OVER POSSESSION OF THE LAND DATED 16.9.2021 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. **WP(C)NOS.25022 & 26339/2021 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26339/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 05.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NOTICE DATED 05.07.2021 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.07.2021 OF TAKING OVER POSSESSION OF THE LAND ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.