SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39715

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J
CHINNAMMA BENCHAMIN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/29110/2020



Advocates:
SRI. N. RETHEESH, SMT. SUMA RETHEESH, SRI. SHANKAR RETHEESH

The competent Authority should take a pragmatic approach in determining applications for condonation of delay under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the need for just compensation.

Headnote:

Compensation - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act - Sections 64 - The court examined the provisions regarding the reference to the Authority, emphasizing a liberal approach to applications for delay condonation in order to ensure fair compensation.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, owners of land, challenged an award made by the Special Tahsildar and sought a re-assessment of compensation based on a delay application they filed.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing an application for reference under the Right to Fair Compensation Act can be condoned based on sufficient cause.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the competent Authority should adopt a pragmatic and non-pedantic approach in evaluating applications for delay condonation under Section 64, considering the factual circumstances.

Final Decision: Writ petition disposed directing the 5th respondent to decide on the condonation application and reference within a month.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who were owners in possession of 18 cents of land comprised in Survey No.131/2 (Resurvey No.449/10, Block No.15) of Chellanam Village covered by Ext.P1 partition deed bearing No.1968/1977 dated 30.04.1997 of Sub Registrar Office, Kochi, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 award dated 25.07.2019 of the 5th respondent Special Tahsildar (LA). The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to assess the compensation for the entire extent of land afresh, in the light of Ext.P6 report of the Taluk Surveyor.

2. On 04.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

3. The petitioners have filed I.A No.1 of 2021 seeking an order to accept Ext.P9 as an additional document and the same was allowed on 18.2.2021.

4. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner filed Ext.P9 application dated 30.01.2021 before the 5th respondent for condonation of delay in filing Ext.P8 application for reference dated 18.02.2020 filed under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. 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 , 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 sub-section (1) of , the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a 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.

7. 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 , 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.

8. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act was enacted by the Parliament to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top