The remedy for petitioners who are entitled to full benefits under the Schedules to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and whose 'One Time Annuity' has been arbitrarily reduced is to approach the District Collector and require that their Awards be referred for the determination of the competent Court under the provisions of Section 64 of the 'Fair Compensation Act'.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners say that they were tenants of a building which was situated in a property now acquired for the purposes of the Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL); and that they are, therefore, entitled to full benefits under the Schedules to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Fair Compensation Act', for short). 2. The petitioners say that, in fact, their entitlement was unequivocally admitted by the 4th respondent - Deputy Collector (LA), Kochi Metro Rail Project, and they were included as beneficiaries under Ext.P2 list, which further led to the proceedings of the Land Revenue Commissioner, namely Ext.P3, wherein, they were included as 29 and 30 in the list of beneficiaries of Vazhakala Village entitled to 'One Time Annuity' of Rs.6,10,000/- each.

3. The petitioners allege that, however, when Ext.P4 Award was issued by the Special Tahsildar, the 'One Time Annuity' eligible to them, was arbitrarily reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- each, even though various others in Ext.P2 list were given the amount of Rs.6,10,000/-. The petitioners say that they, therefore, challenged this part of Ext.P4 before the 3rd respondent - District Collector and that same was forwarded to the 4th respondent – Deputy Collector (LA), who, however, has now issued Ext.P6, saying that he is incompetent from modifying the Award; but giving them liberty to seek remedies under Section 64 of the 'Fair Compensation Act'.

4. The petitioners assert that Ext.P6 is egregiously improper since the Collector was obligated to ensure that the orders of the Land Revenue Commissioner, as available in Ext.P3, had been properly implemented.

5. I have heard Smt.Deepa R.Menon – learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt.T.S.Athira, representing Smt.M.U.Vijayalakshmi – learned Standing Counsel for the KMRL and Sri.Jafar Khan – learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents.

6. Smt.T.S.Athira – learned counsel for the KMRL, submitted that her client has no role to play with respect to the compensation payable to the petitioners, and that it is upto the 3rd and 4th respondents to take a final decision on this. She, therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued against her client.

7. Sri.Jafar Khan – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that, contrary to the assumption of the petitioners, the figures shown in Ext.P3 are the maximum allowable to various persons therein; but that Award could have been issued only after assessing the actual entitlement. He submitted that since the petitioners were running very small businesses and shops, the 4th respondent – Deputy Collector (LA), correctly adjudicated their claim and found that they are entitled only to Rs.2,00,000/- each. He submitted that, in any event of the matter, since Ext.P4 Award has already been issued, the petitioners must now invoke their remedy under Section 64 of the 'Fair Compensation Act' and could not have approached this Court in this manner.

8. When I evaluate the afore submissions, I am left without doubt that even if Ext.P4 is in error for the reason that the 'One Time Annuity' awarded to the petitioners is not in conformity with what has been stated in Ext.P3, their remedy is to approach the District Collector and require that their Awards be referred for the determination of the competent Court under the provisions of Section 64 of the 'Fair Compensation Act'. This remedy is not merely an alternative one, but is also equally efficacious, since the competent Reference Court can certainly look through every aspect, including Ext.P3, while deciding whether any modification to Ext.P4 is required, as far as the petitioners are concerned.

9. I am, therefore, of the firm view that petitioners must invoke their statutory remedy, rather than seek further reliefs in this writ petition, which this Court is incompetent to consider at this time on account of the constraints of jurisdiction, while acting under Articl