Point of Law : Solatium is amount of money paid to offset damage caused by involuntary act of giving up property in question, owing to compulsory nature of acquisition.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners in this writ petition claim to be in absolute possession of 3 cents of land comprised in survey No.1279 of Poonithura Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. The said property, it is not disputed, is marked as 'puramboke' land in the revenue records. It is the case of the petitioners that sometime in the year 1960, the land came into the possession of the husband of the first petitioner [late Joseph]. Thereafter, the late Joseph and his successors, including the petitioners herein, have been in possession of the said property where they are residing after constructing a residential building. The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking to quash Exts.P9 and P10, through which the petitioners were informed that the land would be taken over for the purposes of the Kochi Water Metro without subjecting the land to any proceeding under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and without paying to the petitioners the compensation payable in terms of the provisions contained in the said Act.

2. Sri. T.R.S Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that there is absolutely no dispute that the land in question has been in possession of the late Joseph since 1960 and after his death, with the petitioners as legal heirs of late Joseph. It is submitted that the documents produced along with the writ petition will suggest that there can be no dispute that the petitioners had been in possession of the property for a long time and they are in a position to establish their title by adverse possession. It is submitted that the petitioners have already filed a suit claiming a declaration of title and for an injunction restraining the official respondents from taking over the property without following the procedure contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the land and the building. Reference is made in this regard to the provisions of the First Schedule of the Act as also to the provisions of Section 77(2) of the Act to contend that where a question regarding title is to be established, the entire compensation, including compensation for the land, has to be deposited before the authority competent to consider a reference under Section 64 of the Act. It is submitted that, without following such a procedure, the respondents cannot take over the land and residential building in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also would submit, with reference to the provisions in the Second Schedule of the Act, that the petitioners are entitled to the provision of housing units as the petitioners have been displaced from their dwelling unit. It is submitted that the benefits available to persons, who have lost houses in urban areas, have to be calculated in terms of the provisions contained in the Second Schedule of the Act. As far as the petitioners are concerned, it is submitted that the displacement of the petitioners from the house in question can be only after the rehabilitation and resettlement process is completed. It is also submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to a solatium as contemplated by Section 30 of the Act.

3. Sri. Jaju Babu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the additional 8th respondent, on the instructions of Adv. Brijesh Mohan and Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would contend that there is absolutely no merit in the contentions taken in the writ petition. It is submitted that, admittedly, the land in question is a ‘puramboke’ land. It is submitted that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of “land owner” and that unless the petitioners establish title in the suit stated to have been filed, the petitioners cannot claim any compensation for the land under Section 27 of th