High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-01-06Petition disposed of with directions; no order ...

T.R. Thomas v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ANIL K. NARENDRAN
Judgment Date: 2021-01-06
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is disposed of with directions: (i) If Ext.P2 is in order and filed within the time limit, the 2nd respondent District Collector shall consider the same and pass an appropriate decision within 30 days with notice to the petitioner and after an opportunity of being heard. (ii) If Ext.P2 is belated, the petitioner shall file an application for condonation of delay within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders, with notice to the petitioner, while taking note of the law laid down in Sreedharan. (iii) The 2nd respondent shall act strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T.R. Thomas

Respondents

State of Kerala
The District Collector, Ernakulam
The Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Kochi Corporation Office, Vyttila
Corporation of Cochin

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN
• SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR
• SMT.BLOSSOM MATHEW
• SRI.RENJIT JOHN

Counsels for Respondents

• S.SUDHISH KUMAR, SC. (for R4)
• K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (for R1-R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the inaction of the District Collector in processing Ext.P2 under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, seeking referral of the adequacy of compensation to the Authority. The petitioner, T.R. Thomas, owner of 25 cents in Survey No. 177/3 in Elamkulam, had part of his land acquired for the Pulleppady–Thammanam Road project. Ext.P1 is a 2016 agreement between the petitioner and the District Collector, and Ext.P2 is an application dated 21.11.2020 requesting the Collector to refer the matter to the appropriate Authority under Section 64(1). The petition seeks mandamus to compel consideration of Ext.P2 and a referral to the Authority, with a hearing and within the statutory time frame. On admission notice, the matter was heard, and the court examined the timing and grounds for condonation under the second proviso to Section 64(1) and Section 64(2). The court places emphasis on the Act’s object of ensuring just and timely compensation and adopts a liberal, pragmatic approach to condonation of delay in line with a cited decision in Sreedharan (2020 (5) KHC 424). It directs the District Collector to proceed under the statutory framework and to decide within 30 days if Ext.P2 is in order, or to entertain a condonation application if belated, taking into account the law laid down in Sreedharan. The decision emphasizes compliance with statutory procedure and limits the court’s interference to ensuring lawful action, with no order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (sub-sections 1 and 2, and provisos)Section 51 of the said ActSection 21 of the said ActChapters V and VI of the said ActArticle 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something contrary to law (State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309)
Generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions (Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI, (2011) 10 SCC 259)
A liberal, pragmatic and nonpedantic approach to condonation of delay under Section 64(2) proviso, considering the purpose and context of the Act (Sreedharan and others v. District Collector, Malappuram and another, 2020 (5) KHC 424)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P2 is an application filed under Section 64(1) within time and therefore the 2nd respondent District Collector must consider it and refer the matter to the appropriate Authority for determination of compensation and related rights. If Ext.P2 is not timely, the petitioner should be allowed condonation of delay under the provisos to Section 64(1) and 64(2). The petitioner relies on the liberal approach in Sreedharan (2020 (5) KHC 424) and argues that the object of the Act is to secure just and reasonable compensation and rehabilitation, which requires a timely, pragmatic adjudication. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing prompt action, with notice and an opportunity to be heard, within 30 days, or, if belated, for condonation to be considered in light of the decision in Sreedharan.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the petition cannot compel action beyond the statutory framework. Section 64 requires a reference within prescribed time and provides for condonation only under strict scrutiny with the applicable grounds; Courts cannot compel action contrary to law or override statutory provisions (as per State of Uttar Pradesh v. Harish Chandra and Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI). The respondents contend that any order must be strictly within the Act’s limitations, and the matter should proceed in accordance with the prescribed procedures and time limits, with due respect to the rights of all interested parties. They submit that condonation should be considered only if substantial and genuine grounds are shown, and the court should not substitute its own view over statutory requirements.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sreedharan and others v. District Collector, Malappuram and another	[2020 (5) KHC 424]	Positive	Cited to endorse liberal, pragmatic condonation of delay under Section 64(2) proviso.
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra	(1996) 9 SCC 309	Positive	Used to support principle that mandamus cannot compel actions contrary to law or require refraining from enforcing the law.
Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI	(2011) 10 SCC 259	Positive	Reiterates that courts cannot direct actions contrary to statutory provisions; supports adherence to the statutory framework.

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 T.R. Thomas v. State of Kerala and 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942** **W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **T.R.THOMAS AGED 75 YEARS S/O.RAFFEL, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682017.** **BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR SMT.BLOSSOM MATHEW SRI.RENJIT JOHN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF**| ||**REVENUE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -**| ||**695 001.**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR**| ||**ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM -**| ||**682 030.**| |**3**|**THE TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION)**| ||**KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE, VYTTILA - 682019.**| |**4**|**CORPORATION OF COCHIN**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI**| ||**- 682011.**| ||**R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR, SC.**| ||**R1-R3 BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR. GOVERNMENT**| ||**PLEADER**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the owner in possession of 25 cents of property comprised in Survey No.177/3 of Elamkulam Village as per Sale Deed No.1483/1981 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam. Out of the said property, an extent of 1.6 ares (3.953 cents) in Survey No.177/3-13 of Elamkulam Village was acquired for the purpose of development of Pulleppady Thammanam Road. The document marked as Ext.P1 is an agreement dated 12.02.2016 entered into between the petitioner and 2[nd] respondent District Collector. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 application dated 21.11.2020, before the 2[nd] respondent District Collector, which is one filed invoking the provisions under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P2 application and to refer the question of adequacy of compensation of the acquired land, under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to the authority constituted under Section 51 of the said Act. 2. On 21.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U) 3 admission, notice before admission was ordered to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 4[th] respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent Corporation. 4. Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act deals with reference to Authority. As per subsection (1) of Section 64, any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. As per the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 64, the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U) 4 reference to the appropriate Authority. As per the second proviso to sub-section (1), where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days. 5. As per sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the Act, the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. As per the first proviso to sub-section (2), every such application shall be made (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. As per the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64, the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso. 6. In **Sreedharan and others v. District Collector, Malappuram and another [2020 (5) KHC 424]** , this Court held W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U) 5 that when the very object of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act is to ensure just and reasonable compensation to the affected families, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64, the competent Authority should take a liberal, pragmatic and nonpedantic approach. The term 'sufficient cause' in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64 should be understood in its proper spirit, philosophy and purpose, regard being had to the fact that that term has to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. The conduct and attitude of a petitioner relating to his inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. An application for condonation of delay under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 64 should be drafted with careful concern and not in a casual manner harbouring the notion that the competent Authority is required to condone delay as a matter of course. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with the W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U) 6 ## following directions; (i) In case, Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner under Section 64 of the said Act is in order and filed within the time limit specified, the 2[nd] respondent District Collector shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision on that application with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, within the statutory time limit of 30 days. (ii) In case, that application is belated, the petitioner shall file an application for condonation of delay, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on that application, with notice to the petitioner and after taking note of the law laid down by this Court in **Sreedharan [2020 (5) KHC 424]** . 8. In **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 9. Therefore, pursuant to the direction contained in this W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U) 7 judgment, the 2[nd] respondent District Collector shall consider Ext.P2 application and take an appropriate decision on the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point. No order as to costs. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** MIN **JUDGE** W.P.(C) No.28569 OF 2020(U) 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12/02/2016. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/11/2020 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT.**