High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-26Writ petitions disposed; Ext.P8 set aside; matt...

Latha Vijayan @ Latha Kumari v. District Collector, Kollam; Tahsildar Land Acquisition, LA.1, Kollam

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 36043 of 2010 & 21238 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-07-26
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P8 in WP(C) No.21238/2013 is set aside; The District Collector or an authorized officer will reconsider the application submitted under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in accordance with law; The petitioner will be heard before passing final order; Final orders must be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment; All contentions are left open and the officer may decide untrammeled by observations in the judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed; Ext.P8 set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; hearing to be provided; final orders to be passed within three months; contentions kept open.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Latha Vijayan @ Latha Kumari

Respondents

The District Collector, Kollam
The Tahsildar Land Acquisition LA.1, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.K. Chandra Mohandas
• P. Abdul Razak
• R. Nikhil

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Sheeja C.S. (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are two connected writ petitions filed by Latha Vijayan (also referred to as Latha Kumari) challenging an order under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, passed by the authorities in Kollam. The petitioner seeks a reference to the Court under Section 18(1) for lands acquired under a notification and challenges an order dated 9 May 2013 (Ext.P8) which rejected the reference application as time-barred. The petitions hinge on whether Ext.P8 is a speaking order and on the correct computation of time for filing a reference, particularly where the award may not have been made in the petitioner’s presence or she may not have received notice under Section 12(2). The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court’s Bhagwan Das decision to argue that time limits depend on knowledge of contents of the award, especially when the applicant was not present for the award. The Government Pleader counters that Ext.P8 is a proper, non-speaking order and that the delay is fatal to the petition. The High Court ultimately holds Ext.P8 non-speaking, sets it aside, and directs the District Collector or an authorized officer to reconsider the Section 18 application in accordance with law, to hear the petitioner, and to pass final orders within three months, leaving all contentions open. The court disposes of both petitions by common judgment, with a remand for fresh consideration rather than a determination on the merits at this stage.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894Proviso to Section 18 (interpretation of time limits)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P8 is not a speaking order and any challenge based on the delay in filing under Section 18 should be considered in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das and others v. State of U.P. and others, where the time to file a reference hinges on whether the award was made in the presence of the person interested or when the person knew about the contents of the award, especially if the notice under Section 12(2) was received late or not at all. She argues that Ext.P8 is defective as a recording of the reasons and that a fresh, speaking order should be issued after considering her contentions and evidence.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader submits Ext.P8 is a valid, time-bound order and not a mere formality; the petitioner had adequate knowledge and the time limits under Section 18 were rightly computed. Therefore, there is no infirmity in Ext.P8 and the petitions deserve dismissal or no interference since the matter requires no remand unless a speaking order is produced. The respondents emphasize that the delay in filing cannot be excused and that the statutory procedure must be observed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bhagwan Das and others v. State of U.P. and others	AIR 2010 SC 1532	Positive	Cited to interpret the proviso to Section 18 of the Act, outlining the time limits for making an application for reference depending on presence at the award and knowledge of contents.

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 Latha Vijayan @ Latha Kumari v. District Collector, Kollam; Tahsildar Land Acquisition, LA.1, Kollam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 36043 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONER/S:** LATHA VIJAYAN @ LATHA KUMARI C-58, SAURABH PARK, SUBANPURA P.O.,, LAKSHMI PURAM, BARODA DISTRICT, GUJARAT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.P.ABDUL RAZAK SRI.R.NIKHIL ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM KOLLAM, COLLECTORATE BUILDING,, KOLLAM-691 013. 2 THE TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION L.A.1 COLECTORATE BUILDING, KOLLAM-691 013. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.SHEEJA.C.S., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).21238/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21238 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER/S:** LATHA VIJAYAN @ LATHA KUMARI C-58, SAURABH PARK, SUBANPURA P.O., LAKSHMI PURAM, BARODA DISTRICT, GUJARAT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.NIKHIL SRI.P.ABDUL RAZAK ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KOLLAM-691013. 2 THE THASILDAR LAND ACQUISITION L.A.1, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KOLLAM-691013. BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SMT.SHEEJA C.S. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).36043/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **-------------------------------------------W.P.(C.) Nos.36043 of 2010 & 21238 of 2013 -------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. 2. W.P.(C.) No.36043/2010 is filed with the following prayers : “i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the 1[st] respondent to refer the petitioner's claim/protest to the Sub Court, Kollam under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. ii. grant such other and further reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances.” 3. Pending the above writ petition, the Special Tahsildar, (LA) No.(1), Collectorate, Kollam passed an order dated 9.5.2013 as per proceedings in A2-52/06 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference to the Court. Therefore, that order is challenged in the W.P.(C.) No. 21238/2013. Ext.P8 WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 4 ## is the order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. The prayer in W.P.(C.) No. 21238/2013 is extracted hereunder : “i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the files leading to Exhibit P8 order and quashing the same. ii. Grant such other and further reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the given facts and circumstances.” 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government ## Pleader. 5. The short point raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P8 is not a speaking order and the petitioner has got evidence to show that he was not available at the time when the award was passed. He relied the judgment of the Apex Court in **Bhagwan Das and others v. State of U.P. & others** [AIR 2010 SC 1532] = [JT 2010 (2) SC 483]. He relied the following observation of the Supreme Court, which is extracted hereunder : “12. The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act : (i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award itself. WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 5 (ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12(2). (iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award. (iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under section 12(2)of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award. A person who fails to make an application for reference within the time prescribed is not without remedy. It is open to him to make an application under Section 28A of the Act, on the basis of an award of the Court in respect of the other lands covered by the same acquisition notification, if there is an increase. Be that as it may.” 6. The Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P8 order is passed because the application for reference was time barred. The Government Pleader submitted that there is nothing to interfere in these writ petitions. 7. I perused Ext.P8 order. It is not a speaking order. The petitioner has got different contentions about the delay in approaching the authorities with the petition for reference. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 6 case. Statute prescribed a time limit to entertain an application under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner relied the judgment of the Apex Court in which it is stated that if the person interested was not present when the award is made and if he does not receive the notice under Sec.12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the application within 6 months of the date, on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award. Again, I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case, because the application submitted by the petitioner before the authorities is not before this Court. I leave all those contentions open. Since Ext.P8 is not a speaking order, I will set aside Ext.P8 order and direct the District Collector to reconsider the matter afresh, in accordance to law, leaving open all the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner is free to raise all his contentions before the authorities concerned. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed, in the following manner : - 1) Ext.P8 in W.P.(C.) No.21238/2013 is set aside. - 2) The first respondent himself or an authorized person, as WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 7 directed by the 1[st] respondent will reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. - 3) The first respondent/authorized officer, who is considering the application will hear the petitioner also, before passing final order. - 4) The first respondent/authorized officer will pass final orders in the application submitted by the petitioner under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 5) All the contentions of the petitioner are left open. I also make it clear that the 1[st] respondent/authorized officer deputed is free to decide the matter, in accordance to law, untrammelled by any observation in this judgment. SD/- ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36043/2010** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 3020/1988 DT. 27-10-1988 OF KOTTIYAM S.R.O. EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DT. 04-05-1995. EXHIBIT P3- A COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1958345 OF BOOK NO.E19584 OF MAYYANAD VILLAGE DT.26.4.2010 EXHIBIT P4- A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.6.7.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4(A)-A COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. EXHIBIT P4(B)A COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. EXHIBIT P5- A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 16-10-2010. EXHIBIT P5(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. EXHIBIT P5(B)- A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. WP(C) NO.36043/2010 & 21238 OF 2013 9 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21238/2013** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 3020/1988 DT. 27-10-1988 OF KOTTIYAM S.R.O. EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED DT. 04-05-1995. EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DT. 30-06-2006. EXHIBIT P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DT. 24-07-2008. EXHIBIT P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 04-12-2008. EXHIBIT P6- A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 06-07-2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7- A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 16-10-2010. EXHIBIT P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 09-05-2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.