High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-12-06Writ appeals are dismissed.

WA.No.717/2016 & WA.No.798/2016

Case / Petition Number:WA.No.717 of 2016 & WA.No.798 of 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Manikumar, Chief Justice
A. M. Shaffique, J.
Judgment Date: 2019-12-06
Court Decision / Holding: Writ appeals are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ appeals are dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Aboosalam Koya (1)
Mohammedkoya Aliyamada (2)
Mohammedkoya T.A. (3)
Attakoya (WA 798/2016)

Respondents

The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti
The Land Acquisition Collector, UT of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti
The Deputy Collector, UT of Lakshadweep, Agathi
Lakshadweep Public Works Department, represented by the Superintending Engineer, UT of Lakshadweep, Kavaratty

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Gopalakrishnan Kurup (Sr.)
• M.P. Krishnan Nair
• Rajeswari Krishnan
• Seema Krishnan
• Seema Krishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Manu.S, CGC, Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a division bench of the Kerala High Court hearing two writ appeals (WA 717/2016 and WA 798/2016) arising from judgments in Writ Petitions Nos.23302 of 2013 and 20276 of 2013 dated 16 June 2015. The appellants, residents of Lakshadweep, challenged the writ court’s dismissal of their petitions seeking reference to the Land Acquisition Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for compensation in respect of land acquisitions at Agathi Island and Kavartty. The writ court held that no timely Section 18 application had been submitted within six weeks of the Collector’s award (award dated 17 September 2012). It relied on pre-award letters and representations, concluding that mere protest upon receipt of compensation does not suffice for a reference, and that the law requires timely action. The appellants contended that they had submitted Section 18 applications and that RTI disclosures showed relevant submissions, including a protest-based submission in October 2011 and a post-award representation on 13 March 2013; they invoked related precedents and argued that the remedy could extend to Section 28A if permissible. The respondents maintained that no valid Section 18 application was filed after the award and emphasized that pre-award objections cannot satisfy Section 18 requirements. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, holding no valid Section 18 application had been submitted and affirming the writ court’s order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18Section 18(2)Section 18(2)(a)Section 12(2)Section 28ASection 18(2) (a) of LA Act, 1894

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Objections before award cannot be treated as references under Section 18 (as per Varghese v. Spl. Deputy Collector, 1985 KLT 302)
Mere receipt of compensation under protest does not constitute valid Section 18 reference (per Kamalakshy v. District Collector, 1998 (2) KLT 898)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that they filed proper Section 18 references seeking reference to the Civil Court for compensation. They point to RTI documents showing communications prior to the award in October 2011 and a post-award representation dated 13 March 2013, arguing that these documents establish timely or legally cognizable steps toward a reference. They seek a mandamus directing the respondents to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Court. They rely on Kamalakshy to argue against treating mere protest or late submissions as defeating the right to a reference and argue that Section 28A may remain a viable remedy if permissible.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that no valid Section 18 application was ever submitted post-award and that pre-award letters cannot substitute for a Section 18 application. They place reliance on Varghese v. Spl. Deputy Collector to state that objections prior to award cannot be treated as Section 18 references (Kerala 1985). They emphasize that after award, the period prescribed in Section 18(2) (a) must be followed and that the available remedy is not triggered in these facts. They also note that no timely application was filed and that Section 28A is not a substitute here.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Varghese v. Spl. Deputy Collector	1985 KLT 302	Positive	Cited as authority that an objection filed prior to passing of the award cannot be treated as an application for reference under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act (Kerala). The judgment relies on this principle to justify the absence of a valid Section 18 application.
Kamalakshy v. District Collector	1998 (2) KLT 898	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that mere receipt of compensation under protest does not suffice to constitute a Section 18 reference; used as controlling authority for the writ court’s conclusion.

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 WA.No.717/2016 & WA.No.798/2016 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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WA.No.717 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 23302/2013 DATED 16-06-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 ABOOSALAM KOYA AGED 56, S/O. ABOOBAKER KOYA, PONTHINODA HOUSE, AGATHI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682553.** - **2 MOHAMMEDKOYA ALIYAMMADA S/O. KIDAVU KOYA, KATTAMPALLI, AGATTI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682553.** - **3 MOHAMMEDKOYA T.A. AGED 65 YEARS, THEKKE ALIYAMMADA, AGATHI ISLAND-682 553, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP.** - **BY ADVS.K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SMT.RAJESWARI KRISHNAN SMT.SEEMA KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP KAVARATHI-682555.** - **2 THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.** _**WA.717/2016 & WA.798/2016**_ 2 - **3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, AGATTI-682553.** - **4 LAKSHADWEEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.** **R1-4 BY SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, ALONG WITH WA.798/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**WA.717/2016 & WA.798/2016**_ 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WA.No.798 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 20276/2013 DATED 16-06-2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **ATTAKOYA AGED 82 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KULIL, MOOTHAMKAKKADA HOUSE, AGATHI ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 553.** **BY ADVS.K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SMT.RAJESWARI KRISHNAN SMT.SEEMA KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADEEP, KAVARATHI-683 555.** - **2 THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR U.T. OF LAKSHADEEP, KAVARATHI-683 555.** - **3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR U.T. OF LAKSHADEEP, AGATHI-683 553** _**WA.717/2016 & WA.798/2016**_ 4 ## **4 LAKSHADEEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, U.T. OF LAKSHADEEP, KAVARATHI-683 555.** **R1-4 BY SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, ALONG WITH WA.717/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**WA.717/2016 & WA.798/2016**_ 5 ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 6[th] day of December, 2019 ## S. Manikumar, CJ Being aggrieved by judgments made in writ petition Nos.23302 of 2013 and 20276 of 2013 dated 16.6.2015, instant appeals are filed. Before the writ court, petitioners have contended that they have submitted applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference to the Civil Court for compensation. They have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to refer the matter to the Land Acquisition Court (District Court). After going through the material on record, writ court on 16.6.2015, passed the ## following judgment: “The petitioner very much participated in the Award enquiry as revealed from the proceedings dated 1.5.2012. Ext.P7 Award was passed on 17.9.2012 and the petitioner had the liberty to file an application for reference within six weeks therefrom. A period of six weeks from the date of the Award is the upper limit when the petitioner has participated in the Award enqiry. This is discernible from Section 18(2)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The petitioner has preferred a representation after the Award only on 13.3.2013. This is evident from Ext.P11 reply given to the query made under the Right to _**WA.717/2016 & WA.798/2016**_ 6 Information Act. More than 6 weeks had elapsed on 13.3.2013 after Ext.P7 Award dated 17.9.2012 as revealed from the records. 3. The mere receipt of compensation under protest will not suffice to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The issue is covered by Kamalakshy v. District Collector [1998 (2) KLT 898]. No application in time has been made to warrant a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners are however free to invoke Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act if the same is permissible. The Writ Petition is dismissed.” 2. Inviting the attention of this Court to a RTI information dated 4.12.2013 furnished by the Deputy Collector (Head Quarters), Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti. Addressed to one Mr. Kamarudheen Shahib K.P., a third party to this proceedings, in particular, to the answers of querry Nos.3 and 6, Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that proper applications under Section 18 of the Act have been submitted to the authorities for reference to the competent District Court. 3. To ascertain as to whether the appellants were put on notice when the award was passed and whether applications have been submitted after the award was passed, we directed the respondents to produce the relevant files. Going through the files, in respect of W.A. _**WA.717/2016 & WA.798/2016**_ **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** No.798 of 2016, Mr. S. Manu, learned Standing Counsel for the Administration of Union Territory of Lashadweep submitted that before the award was passed, in October, 2011, a letter was given by the appellants to receive the award under protest. Award was passed on 17.9.2012. Learned Standing counsel for the Administration of Union Territory of Lashadweep further submitted that no application under Section 18 of the Act, was submitted after the award was passed. Placing reliance on decision in Varghese v. Spl. Deputy Collector reported in [1985 KLT 302], learned counsel further submitted that any application given before the award, cannot be taken to be a proper application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Learned counsel for Administration of Union Territory of Lashadweep further submitted that said letter given in the year 2011, before the award was passed, has been forwarded to the Office of the District Collector and thus a reply was given to the effect that objections were received on 13.3.2013. He has made it clear that no application was received after the award was passed. 4. In respect of Writ Appeal No.717 of 2016, after going through the files, Mr. S. Manu, learned Standing Counsel for the Administration of Union Territory of Lashadweep submitted that no application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was submitted. _**WA.717/2016 & WA.798/2016**_ 8 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads thus: “18. Reference to Court .-(1) 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 Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: � Provided that 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 12, subsection (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.” ## 6. In Varghese v. Spl. Deputy Collector reported in [1985 KLT 302] , a Honourable Division Bench of this Court held that an objection filed prior to passing of award cannot be treated as an application for reference under Section 20 of Land Acquisition Act, 1962 (Kerala). _**WA.717/2016 & WA.798/2016**_ **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** 5. We accept the submission of Mr. S. Manu, learned Standing Counsel for the Administration of Union Territory of Lashadweep (Collectorate), Kavaratti Island, that no application as required under law, has been submitted. In the light of the above decision and discussion, we do not find any error in the judgment of the writ court, warranting interference. Writ appeals are dismissed. Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice Sd/A.M. Shaffique, Judge sou.