State of Kerala and Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Railway, Perumbavoor-Angamaly v. Mary W/o. Urumees, Molly, Lovely and Rosily

W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -1- ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ``` WA NO. 2273 OF 2016 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WPC 17971/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: ``` - **`1 STATE OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682030.`** - **`2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION RAILWAY, PERUMBAVOOR-ANGAMALY,SHABARI RAILWAY, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542.`** - **`BY ADV. V. TEKCHAND, SR. GP`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 MARY W/O.URUMEES, CHIRAMEL KUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE,MATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.`** - **`2 MOLLY`** - **`D/O.URUMEES, CHIRAMEL KUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.`** - **`3 LOVELY D/O.URUMEES, CHIRAMEL KUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.`** - **`4 ROSILY`** - **`D/O.URUMEES, CHIRAMEL KUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`ADV.GEORGE SEBASTIAN`** W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -2- ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -3- ## **`C.R.`** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## A. J. Desai, C. J. The present appeal has been filed by the State authorities challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2016 in W. P. (C) No. 17971 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge has directed the 2[nd] appellant to refer the issue relating to the adequacy of compensation granted to the petitioners to the civil court for adjudication under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Short facts that arise from the record are as under:- Several parcels of land of the original petitioners were acquired for construction of a new railway line from Angamaly to Azhutha. Since there were rival claimants, a reference was made under Section 30 of the Act, which was numbered as LAR No. 35 of 2012. By judgment dated 12.02.2015 of the additional Sub Judge, North Paravur, the reference was decided in favour of the original petitioners and thus became final. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application dated 09.03.2015 requesting the District Collector to W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -4- refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act since the petitioners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The District Collector refused to consider the application and hence, the petitioners filed the captioned writ petition seeking a direction to refer Ext. P2 application to the Sub Court invoking Section 18 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, after considering the material on record, allowed the writ petition directing the present appellants to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State authorities would submit that the award was declared by the authority on 29.10.2010 whereas application for reference under Section 18 was made only on 09.03.2015. He would submit that the petitioners were aware of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, they were supposed to make an application under Section 18 for reference to the competent court which has not been done and therefore, the District Collector has rightly rejected the application. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Government Pleader has relied on the decisions of W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -5- the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Madan v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (1) KLT 22 (SC)]** and **Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Another [2015 (7) SCC 601]** . He therefore would submit that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the original petitioners has supported the decision of the learned Single Judge. He would submit that, objections with regard to the ownership of the land were raised by some persons and by judgment dated 12.02.2015 the civil court had found the petitioners to be the original owners of the property. Therefore, the period of limitation for requesting reference under Section 18 of the Act would start only from the date of the judgment by which the petitioners’ right over the property was established. Hence, the application dated 09.03.2015 for reference was made within the prescribed period of limitation and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed no error. 5. He would further submit that apart from the land in W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -6- question, an other parcel of the land belonging to the petitioners was also sought to be acquired and rival claims raised. There also, the reference under Section 30 was answered in favour of the petitioners. The District Collector refused to refer the application under Section 18 with respect to those lands also and therefore, another writ petition was filed by the petitioners being W. P. (C) No. 17974 of 2016. The said writ petition was also allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 01.08.2016, but that said judgment was never challenged by the State authorities even though the land is covered under the same award involved in the present petition. Subsequent to the judgment in W. P. (C) No. 17974 of 2016, a reference was made by the concerned officer on 24.05.2017 complying with the judgment. In support of his submission, he has produced the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) No. 17974 of 2016 and the reference made by the concerned officer on 24.05.2017. He therefore would submit that when the application under Section 18 is accepted and referred in identical case, similar treatment should have been extended by the State authorities for the land in question also. He therefore would submit that the appeal be W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -7- dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 7. It is an undisputed fact that rival claims were raised with regard to the land in question and reference was made before the Sub Judge way back in the year 2012 being LAR No. 35 of 2012. By judgment dated 12.02.2015, it was declared that the original petitioners are the owners of the property in question. In our considered opinion, since the ownership of the original petitioners on the land had become final only by the judgment dated 12.02.2015, the limitation period prescribed for submitting the request of reference for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act would commence only from the date of the judgment. This finding of ours is supported by the decision in **Madan** (supra), the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:- “12. A cursory glance of the provisions of Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, extracted above, may suggest that there is some overlapping between the provisions inasmuch as both contemplate reference of the issue of apportionment of W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -8- compensation to the Court. But, a closer scrutiny would indicate that the two Sections of the Act operate in entirely different circumstances. While Section 18 applies to situations where the apportionment made in the Award is objected to by a beneficiary thereunder, Section 30 applies when no apportionment whatsoever is made by the Collector on account of conflicting claims. In such a situation one of the options open to the Collector is to make a reference of the question of apportionment to the Court under Section 30 of the Act. The other is to relegate the parties to the remedy of a suit. In either situation, the right to receive compensation under the Award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant. It is only thereafter that a reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference under Section 30 or in the civil suit, as may be.” 8. In the present case, the application was made on 09.03.2015 which is within the prescribed time, i.e. six weeks from the date of the judgment of the Sub Judge. Therefore, the authority should not have refused to refer the matter and hence, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in directing the authority to refer the matter W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -9- under Section 18. 9. Apart from this aspect, the State authorities have accepted the judgment dated 01.08.2016 in W. P. (C) No. 17974 of 2016 with regard to another parcel of land belonging to the petitioners, which is also covered by the award involved in the present case. Complying the said judgment, reference was made way back in the year 2017 and therefore, we are of the opinion that similar treatment is required to be given to the original petitioners in the present case also. As already discussed in the decision relied on by the learned Senior Government Pleader in **Madan** ’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, in the event of there being a dispute as to apportionment, the claimant can legitimately seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation only after the dispute is decided by the civil court pursuant to the reference under Section 30. Therefore, the decision is in favour of the original petitioners. The decision in **Rajasthan Housing Board** ’s case (supra) having been rendered on an entirely different W. A. No. 2273 of 2016 -10- set of facts, are not applicable to the present case. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed. **Sd/A. J. DESAI CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/V. G. ARUN JUDGE** Eb