Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 53786
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
P.K.SHAKEEB – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 11902/2016
SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE
A claimant can only seek enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act after an order of apportionment is made, as established by the Apex Court.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 30 - Writ petitions concerning land acquisition and compensation - Petitioners challenged rejection of applications for enhanced compensation as time-barred - Court held that right to seek enhancement crystallizes only after apportionment is made - Applications were within time as per the Apex Court's ruling in Madan v. State of Maharashtra. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Officer - The court emphasized that a claimant can only seek a reference for enhanced compensation after an order of apportionment is passed, either by the Court or in a civil suit. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The respondents acquired land from the petitioners in 2004 under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners sought enhanced compensation after the Sub Court's apportionment of shares, which was rejected as time-barred by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applications for enhanced compensation were timely and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court under Section 18 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applications for enhanced compensation were time-barred and the proper timing for seeking such references.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to seek enhanced compensation arises only after an order of apportionment is made, aligning with the Apex Court's interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside.
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C.) No. 11902/2016 first.
2. The respondents acquired 0.0276 hectares of land belonged to the petitioner in the year 2004 as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . The father of the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and produced copy of the title deed executed in favour of the petitioner. But, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P1 award and deposited the amount in the court and referred the matter under Sec.30 of the . The Sub Court subsequently found in Ext.P2 award in LAR No. 399/2014 that the petitioner is the only claimant entitled for the award amount. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 17.08.2015 and the copy is received on 28.10.2015. Thereafter, Ext.P3 application is submitted to the 2nd respondent seeking reference under Sec. 18 of the Act for adjudication of the claim for enhanced compensation by the Sub Court. But the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order rejecting Ext.P3 application holding that the same is hopelessly time barred. According to the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer has made reference to the Sub Court under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In such situation, the right to receive the compensation under the award would crystallise after the order is made by the Sub Court in favour of the said claimant. According to the petitioner, only thereafter, a reference under Sec. 18 for the enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed by the Sub Court in the reference under Sec. 30 of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P3 application is within time. Hence, this writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i) “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P4 Order passed by the 2nd respondent.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to refer Ext. P3 application to the Sub Court for adjudication u/s 18 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 .
iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may please to grant in the circumstances of the case.” [sic] W.P.(C.) 19758/2015 W.P.(C.) 19758/2015 is filed with following prayers :
ii) “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P3 Order passed by the 2nd respondent.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to refer Ext. P2 application to the Sub Court for adjudication u/s 18 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 .
iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may please to grant in the circumstances of the case.” [sic]
3. As far as this case is concerned, 0.0204 hectares (5.10 cents) of land from the petitioner and others were notified under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.02.2006. But the compensation fixed by the 2nd respondent is deposited in the court because of the rival claimants and it has been referred to sub court. The sub court found that claimants A to G and L to N are the legitimate claimants and passed Ext.P2 award on 31.10.2014 fixing apportionment of shares. The writ petitioner is A claimant before the Sub Court. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment on 4.11.2014 and copy is received on 15.12.2015. Thereafter, Ext.P2 application is filed to the 2nd respondent seeking reference under Sec.18 of the Act for adjudication of the claim for enhanced compensation by sub court. But the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting Ext.P2 application holding that the same is hopelessly time barred. According to the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer has made apportionment of the compensation on account of conflicting claims and hence the matter was referred to the Sub Court. In such si
