Back
2012 Supreme(Ker) 1094
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MANJULA CHELLUR, V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ.
State of Kerala - Appellant
v.
Annamma Thomas - Respondent
W.A. No.761 of 2010
Decided On : 14-09-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.I. Davis (Government Pleader)
For the Respondent: O. Ramachandran Nambiar & Geen T. Mathew
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act 1894 - Sections 18, 28A and 28A( 3) - Land dispute - Award - Reference to Court - Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation - Petition dismissed on ground of delay - An award passed by the Reference Court after remand of the matter by the appellate court is also an award under challenged - Held, Application for reference being dismissed on the ground of limitation, because there is no application fructifying into any reference. In such circumstances, owner can maintain application under S.28A of the Act as long as other conditions are fulfilled. A person who gets benefit of higher compensation under S. 28A(1) of the Act can make an application to the Collector under S. 28A(3) for making a reference to the court as defined in S. 3(d) of the Act and this right cannot be denied - Once application is filed before the Collector, he has to take into account all relevant facts into consideration such as the latest award, date of award, effective application, enhancement or reduction of compensation. As long as the applicant fulfills the conditions envisaged under S.28A, there will be no embargo to proceed with the application. If an award is passed by Reference Court after remand of the matter by appellate court, it is also an award under S.28A.
1. Appellants were respondents in the Writ Petitions before learned Single Judge. The Writ Petitions came to be filed by the party respondents seeking reference of applications filed by the writ petitioners to the concerned court having jurisdiction under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions holding, an application filed under Section 28A of the Act can be submitted within three months from the date of award passed by a reference court on an application filed under Section 28A(3) of the Act and also on the basis of an award passed by the court after remittance under Section 54 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the State.
2. So far as W.A.No.761 of 2010, the land involved is 0.0810 hector in Resurvey No.266/6 of Ramanthali Village. W.A.No.557 of 2010 pertains to 1 acre of land in Re-survey No.74/2 of Ramanthali Amsom acquired under the same notification as the other appeal. W.A.No.1676 of 2010 refers’to 1 acre 17 cents in Re-survey No.334 of Ramanthali Village acquired for Naval Base purpose. W.A.No. 1736 of 2010 pertains to 5 acres 40 cents in Re-survey No.344 and 1 acre 34 cents in Re-survey No.331/2 of Ramanthali Village. W.A.No.1738 of 2010 refers to 3.50 acres of land in Re-survey No.332 of Ramanthali Village acquired for Ezhimala Naval Academy. W.A.No.1739 of 2010 pertains to 1.26.5000 acres of land in Re-survey No.344 of Ramanthali Village for Ezhimala Naval Academy. W.A.No.1747 of 2010 is in respect of 1.20 acres of land in Re-survey No.344 of Ramanthali Village.
3. W.A.Nos.557 and 761 of 2010 arise out of a common judgment dated 29.9.2009. In these two appeals, though compensation was received under protest, no application came to be filed for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Under Section 28A of the Act, an application came to be filed on 1.6.1998 before the District Collector, Kannur placing reliance on judgment in LAR. No.120 of 1987 of Sub Court, Payyannur. This came to be rejected as time barred for proceedings dated 21.4.2009, as the original judgment in LA.No.120 of 1987 came to be passed on 20.3.1990. Second application came to be filed on 1.6.1990 after disposal of LAA. No.229 of 1992. An application came to be filed on 16.6.1990 placing reliance on the judgment in LAR. No.120 of 1987. According to the appellants, in the absence of any challenge against the rejection of the application dated 1.6.1998, the learned Single Judge ought not to have considered the case of the writ petitioners but ought to have dismissed the Writ Petition.
4. So far as W.A.No.557 of 2010, on the basis of, award in LAR. No.15 of 1987 at Exhibit PI, an application came to be filed and the same was rejected on 18.9.2006 as barred by limitation. This judgment at Exhibit P3 has reached finality. Another application came to be filed on 22.5.1998 under Section 28A of the Act for redetermination, placing reliance on LAR.120 of 1987. The Writ Petition came to be filed for a direction to consider application filed under Section 28A of the Act. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the application was dismissed as not maintainable. Third application came to be filed on 26.2.2008. However, this Court, as per judgment dated 1.4.2008 in WP(C). No.26153 of 2007, directed the second respondent to dispose of the application filed under Section 28A of the Act. Having regard to the dismissal of application on 18.9.2006, an intimation was sent as per Exhibit Pll that third application cannot be considered.
5. The rest of the appeals are based on common judgment dated 26.5.2010. The first judgment of the learned Single Judge is dated 29.9.2009 and other judgments in the Writ Petitions are dated 26.5.2010. The crucial question that has to be decided in these appeals is, when an award of the authority is set aside by the High Court and the matter is remitted, if the reference court again decides the said matter, fr
