Landowners can invoke enhanced compensation provisions of the 2013 Act, even under Direct Purchase agreements if explicitly stated in those agreements.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the property owned by the petitioners and acquired for the purpose of construction of the Edappally Flyover can be acquired only by recourse to section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and for a direction to the respondents to honour their obligations under Exts.P3 and P6 agreements by drawing up an award under Section 24 of the Act 30 of 2013.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were the absolute owners of property having an extent of 2.09 Ares in Sy. No. 12/2, 4, 6 and 0.22 Ares in Sy. No.12/15 in Block No. 5 of Thrikkakkara North Village and it was the subject matter of a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . The property was intended to be acquired by the respondents 3 and 4 for the construction of ‘Edappally Flyover’.

3. While proceedings for acquisitions were pending, Act 30 of 2013 was enacted and the same came into force. The Government permitted the District Collector and Revenue authorities to negotiate with the owners of the land for speedy acquisition as the land was required for the Metro Rail Project. Based on the basic valuation report submitted by the Revenue authorities, the value of the property was fixed. The District Level Purchase Committee (DLPC) negotiated with the land owners including the petitioner and thereafter a settlement was arrived at. The petitioners are stated to have agreed to hand over the property to the District Collector for a value fixed at Rs.31,60,000/- per cent. Thereafter, separate agreements were rendered on 16.6.2014 and as agreed upon, 80% of the total compensation amount was paid to the petitioners. In the agreements so executed, between the petitioners and the District Collector, among other clauses, it is specifically mentioned that the Relief and Rehabilitation Package, if applicable and as declared by the Government of Kerala under Act 30 of 2013 with regard to the purchase of the land described to the schedule would be implemented. As per the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed to execute the sale deed on the District Collector paying the balance 20% of the sale consideration to the land owners and after implementing the Relief and Rehabilitation Package to be declared by the Government of Kerala, if and as applicable as per Act 30 of 2013.

It is contended that the matter was indefinitely prolonged and the request of the petitioners to execute the sale deed was not acceded to. Later, by Exts.P13 and P14 notices, the petitioners were informed that the agreements were executed under the Direct Purchase Scheme and therefore, they cannot insist on the applicability of the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 while executing the sale deed. It is the case of the petitioners that the intention of the respondents is to deny the lawful enhancement of compensation that the petitioners are entitled to under Act

30 of 2013.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. After narrating the sequence of events, it is stated that the respondents are bound to pay only 20% of the total compensation after approval of the SLEC. It is further contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation over and above the amount determined by the DLPC. The provisions of Act 30 of 2013 has no application as the purchase was under the Direct Purchase Scheme.

5. The 4th respondent has filed a memo requesting to adopt the counter affidavit filed by them in W.P.(C) No. 27191 of 2016 as the issue involved in both the cases are one and the same. It is stated that as per clause (2) and (3) of the agreement, the petitioners are eligible for Relief and Rehabilitation Package as per Act 30 of 2013 and according to them, no consideration other than what is specifically mentioned in the agreement is payable by the District collector to the land owners. It is contended that as the sale con