J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 21st day of November, 2022 S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.

Before the writ court, writ petitioner/appellant sought for the following relief:

"Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order directing the respondents to refrain from taking possession of the land taken in [Ext.P1 and Ext.P2] belonging to the pet comprised in Sy.No.702/7 in Ernakulam Village by use of force or by such other means without the authority of law."

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:

2.1 Petitioner is the owner in possession of 55.5 cents (approximate of the landed property) and out of the said extent of land, vide Ext.P1 notification dated 6-9-2013, the State expressed interest to acquire 1.31 Ares and urgency clause was to be invoked, evident from Ext.P1.

2.2 For about an year, no proceedings based on Ext.P1 was taken by the respondents. Vide Ext.P2 dated 08-08-2014, the Special Tahsildar (L.A), No.1, Kochi Metro Rail Project, Ernakulam – 3rd respondent, expressed interest to purchase 3.01 Ares, out of the land holdings of the petitioner, wherein petitioner runs a lodging house, in which there are 79 furnished rooms.

2.3. According to the petitioner, an inventory of the movables prepared by an Advocate commissoner with the help of an expert engineer in a suit numbered as O.S. 1075/21 of Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam reveals the value of the movables between Rs.81 Lakhs to Rs. 84 lakhs. According to him, the proposed acquisition or attempt to purchase the land of the petitioner would lead to loss of ingress and egress to the remaining holdings.

2.4. According to the petitioner, on 01-06-2015, the Speciqal Tahsildar (L.A), No.1, Kochi Metro Rail Project, Ernakulam & Deputy Colletor (L.A), Kochi Metrol Rail Project, Ernakulam – respondent Nos.3 &4, gave oral notice to the petioner to surrender land having an extent of 3.01 Ares.

2.5 It is submitted by the petitioner that petitioner expressed his difficulty in as much as there was no notice in writing, no attempt to pay amounts in advance before taking possession, to pay valaue of the movables & building and to give ingress and egress to the balance larger extent of land, etc.

2.6 It is contended by the petitioner that respondents 3 and 4 categorically stated that possession of the land would be taken by use of force at any rate. It is in this background the writ petition was filed.

3. Considering the averments and adverting to the rival submissions, vide judgement dated 24th July, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.17093 of 2015, writ court ordered thus:

"3. Petitioner entered into an agreement with the District Collector, Ernakulam. Accordingly, 80% of compensation was paid for 3.01 Ares. Petitioner's case is that an award should be passed in terms of Act 30/2013. it came into force with effect from 1.01.2014.

4. In the agreement itself it was agreed to award compensation in accordance with the relief and rehabilitation package to be implemented in terms of Act 30/2013.

5. There is no provision under the Act 30/2013, to pass an award based on negotiations or agreement. This Court in similar circumstances adopted a course directing the land owner to execute a sale deed and treating the sale deed as an award directed the Land Acquisition Officer to refer fro the re-determination of the compensation in accordance with Sec.64 of the Act 30/2013. In such circumstances, petitioner shall execute a sale deed in terms of the agreement. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Officer shall take steps to refer the claim for re- determination of compensation under Sec.64 of the Act 30/2013 within a further period of two months thereon.

The Writ Petition is disposed as above.”

4. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed.

5. When the matter came up on 14th November, 2022, by inviting attention of this Court to the 'Policy on Way Leave' of Kochi Metro Rail Ltd., produced before us, Mr.K.Jaju Babu – learned Senior Counsel appearing for Kochi Metro Rail Project Ltd., - the 5th respondent, submitted