SANTHA.K.R. v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA; DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA; SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R.) NO.III, HARIPPAD; RAGHAVA PANICKER REGHUKUMAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 17997 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SANTHA.K.R.,VASANTHALAYAM (CHANDINI) PATTATHANAM P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.S.RAMESH RESPONDENTS: - ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R) NO.III SUPER THERMAL POWER STATION, HARIPPAD. 4. RAGHAVA PANICKER REGHUKUMAR USHA BHAVAN, CHINGOLI P.O.,HARIPPAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.17997 OF 2008 ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16-1-1997 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 9(3) EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 24-4-1997 PASSED BY THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-8-1998 IN O.P.NO. 8052 OF 1998 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-12-2001 IN O.S.NO.5/99 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPPAD /True Copy/ PA to Judge. ## **PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c).No.17997 OF 2008** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22[nd] day of August, 2008 ## **JUDGMENT** The grievance voiced by the petitioner who is an awardee of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act along with her brotherthe 4[th] respondent is that the third respondent land acquisition officer has not paid the compensation amount to her and the 4[th] respondent. The following are the prayers in the writ petition: “ a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith disburse the amount of compensation awarded vide Ext.P2. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the amount of compensation awarded vide Ext.P2 to the petitioner and others along with 12% interest.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed. But the learned Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji on the basis of the instructions received by him submitted that the compensation amount could not be WPC.No.17997/08 2 disbursed due to objections and claims raised by one Suresh Kumar who is the brother of the writ petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner had filed applications for release of the amount on 13/09/2007 and 04/03/2008 and that along with those applications she had produced copies of Exts.P3 and P4. But the land acquisition officer did not release payment since there were no clear directions to the land acquisition officer to release payment to the petitioners in those judgments. 3. Sri.S.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the only objector was Suresh Kumar and in Ext.P3 judgment of this court it has been clearly held that Sri.Suresh Kumar's objections are not sustainable. Ext.P4 is a judgment dismissing the suit filed by Sri.Suresh Kumar. This court having found in Ext.P3 that the objections filed by Sri.Suresh Kumar are not sustainable, it is not necessary for the land acquisition officer to insist on any positive direction by this court regarding release of the compensation to the petitioner and her brother Sri.Raghukumar, the fourth respondent. Learned counsel drew my attention to the judgment of the Supreme WPC.No.17997/08 3 Court in **Lila Ghosh (Smt.) (Dead) through LR Tapas Chandra Roy** **v. State of West Bangal** (2004(9)SCC 337) and also to sections 31 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to Sri.S.Ramesh it is obligatory under section 31 that the collector deposits the compensation amount in court, if the collector is unable to resolve the issue between the claimants. In the instant case though dispute was settled by this court under Ext.P3 judgment, the Collector not only not deposited the amount in the reference court but also failed to release the amount. Learned counsel would submit that therefore the interest at statutory rates mentioned in Section 34 should also be paid to the petitioner and her brother Raghukumar. 4. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the writ petition does not even contain an averment to the effect that either the petitioner or her brother has requested the land acquisition officer for release of the compensation amount to them. He further submitted that the prayer in the writ petition is for payment at 12% interest to make up for the loss occasioned to the petitioner on account of the delay in receiving payment of the compensation. The said prayer is not founded WPC.No.17997/08 4 on Section 34. Government Pleader also submitted referring to Rules 13 and 14 of the Land Acquisition Kerala Rules that if notice of award is issued and the awardee does not come forward to receive the amount along with necessary documents called for, the amount will have to be deposited under revenue deposit which is what has been done in this case. 5. I have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar in the light of the statutory provisions to which my attention was drawn as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court which was cited by Sri.S.Ramesh. It is true that the writ petition does not contain any averment to the effect that the petitioner or her brother Raghukumar has requested the land acquisition officer for release of the compensation to them after Exts.P3 and P4 were issued by this court and the Munsiff court. But the written instruction given to the Government Pleader on 21/08/2008 will show that the petitioner had filed application on 13/09/2007 and that copy of Ext.P3 and P4 were also produced before the land acquisition officer. But it is seen that the land acquisition officer is a party to Ext.P3 and therefore it should be WPC.No.17997/08 5 assumed that the land acquisition officer was having notice regarding Ext.P3 as soon as the same was passed. I am not at all impressed by the stand taken by the land acquisition officer that he was unable to release payment since Ext.P3 or Ext.P4 do not contain any specific direction regarding release of payment to the petitioner and her brother. According to the land acquisition officer only Suresh Kumar, the brother of the petitioner had objected. Once Ext.P3 which clearly holds that the petitioner's brother Suresh Kumar has no interest in the property was made known to the land acquisition officer, he should have released the payments to the petitioner and her brother without insisting on any condition. It is seen from Exts.P2 award notice that the award is passed in favour of the petitioner and her brother Raghukumar. But a condition is incorporated that a consent letter from Sri.Suresh Kumar and Smt.Rohini Amma should be produced. The partition deed relied on by the petitioner and her brother Raghukumar has attained finality. Going by that partition deed, only the petitioner and Raghukumar have interest in the property. Insistence of consent letter from Sri.Suresh Kumar and Smt.Rohini Amma was not justified WPC.No.17997/08 6 atleast after Exts.P4 and P5 judgments. 6. The petitioner's claim for interest at 12% is not on the basis of Section 34, but as already indicated is on the basis that she is entitled to be compensated for the loss sustained due to the delay in receiving the payment. I feel that atleast to a certain extent, she should be compensated. Accordingly, I am inclined to direct the land acquisition officer to release the payment of compensation amount determined under Ext.P2 to the petitioner and her brother Raghukumar together with interest @ 12% per annum for a period of three years immediately prior to the date of actual release. Compensation and interest as ordered above shall be paid to them within two months of the petitioner making available a copy of this judgment before the third respondent. Since it is seen that the third respondent is the person responsible, there will be a direction that the third respondent will be personally liable for the interest amount ordered to be released. If the government so desires, the interest amount can be realised from him. **PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE** sv WPC.No.17997/08 7