Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
Ponnunni, Devaki, Saseendra M, Surendranathan M, Rajendran M, Krishnadas M, Sudheeshkumar, Pushpanjali, Athmaja, Akshaykumar, Mohandas, Krishnakumar, Santhoshkumar, Sreedharan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Land Acquisition Appeal | LA.APP. NO. 3 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.C.John
For the Respondents: P.Thomas Geevergheese, Sonnet Paul, Tony Thomas, Amrutha K.P., Sagar Roshan, Ruban Joe Toniyo, T.K. Shajahan
Legal appeals under Section 77(2) of the Act are not maintainable; constitutional remedies must be pursued instead.
Headnote:Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 deals with the authority to deposit compensation in title disputes. The Court examined whether an appeal under such section is maintainable. The finding concluded that it is not beneficial, allowing the appellant to withdraw the appeal to pursue constitutional remedies instead. The interim order remains for three weeks. The main issue is the appeal's maintainability regarding an award pursuant to Section 77(2) of the Act. The Court reasoned that, unlike the National Highways Act provisions, the authority for the award under this act can't be treated as a civil court as defined by civil procedure law. Thus, only constitutional recourse is viable for such challenges. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, affirming that the appellant may seek constitutional remedy against the award.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of land acquisition appeal case. (Para 1) |
| 2. maintainability of appeal under section 77(2) analyzed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court permits withdrawal of appeal to seek constitutional remedy. (Para 5) |
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This land acquisition appeal arises from an award passed in reference under Section 77 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act'). At the outset, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents raised a question regarding maintainability. According to them, no appeal would lie before this Court from an award passed in reference under (2) of the Act.
2. Section 77 (2) of the Act authorises the Collector to deposit the amount of compensation to the authority to which a reference under Section 64 of the Act would lie, in case of any dispute as to the title to receive compensation or the apportionment of it. The same applies to disputes regarding apportionment under Section 76 of the Act, which provides that the Collector shall refer such disputes to the said authority.
3. Section 74 of the Act provides for an appeal against an award passed by the authority under Section 69 of the Act. It does not contain any provision for an appeal against an award passed under Sections 76 or 77(2) of the Act. This means that there is no other provision in the enactment providing for an appellate remedy in such cases. Then, the question is whether an award passed by the authority referred to under Section 64 of the Act is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under any other provision of law.
4. We note that similar provisions exist in the National Highways Act, 1956, where a reference under Section 3H(4) is to the civil court. In such a matter, when a statutory provision specifically states that a reference has to be made before the civil court, no doubt a revision would lie before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in this matter, the authority is not the civil court. Merely for the reason that an additional district judge is given authority, invoking section 51 of the Act, in the state of Kerala, the authority cannot be treated as a civil court for the purpose of challenging an order under the Civil Procedure Code. That being the case, the challenge against such an award would lie before this Court only by invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Registry (Judicial) shall take note of this aspect and circulate the same to all the Filing Scrutiny Officers, to be followed whenever a challenge is made against an award passed under Section 77 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, we permit the appellant to withdraw this appeal, with liberty to challenge the award by invoking the appropriate constitutional remedy. The interim order passed in this matter shall continue for a period of three weeks to enable the appellant to approach this Court.
This Land Acquisition Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
