The ruling clarifies entitlement to compensation under the Act based on the validity of consent documents and reaffirms procedural adherence for timely resolution.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant asserts that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2020 is in error, inasmuch as it has been declared therein that he is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act 2013’, for short).

2. Dr.V.N.Sankarjee – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the findings of the learned Single Judge, that his client is not entitled to the benefits of the afore ‘Act’, have been entered without proper thought and without appreciating the impact of Ext.P8 judgment earlier issued by this Court. He contended that the learned Single Judge could not have declared as afore because, Ext.P2 - which is the alleged consent issued by his client to surrender his land, subject to the payment of consideration to be fixed by the District Collector in terms of the order of the Government relating to the negotiated settlement of land - is not genuine or acceptable in law. He contended that, since Ext.P2 is a document which could not have been accepted by any judicial forum, much less this Court, the findings in the impugned judgment are untenable.

3. Sri.B.S.Syamanthak – learned Government Pleader, refuted the afore submissions, saying that the appellant never had a case that Ext.P2 is not a genuine document, or that it was not signed by him, when this Court has considered W.P(C)No.21961/2010 - the judgment in which is Ext.P8. He argued that, going by Ext.P8 judgment, the District Collector was directed only to reconsider the value of the land in terms of Ext.P2 (produced as Ext.P1 therein); and that it hence is rendered ineluctable that the appellant never had a case about the genuineness of the said document. He argued that, therefore, a fresh cause projected against the said document in the present Writ Petition, was impermissible; and that this has been correctly dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.

4. We have considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the materials on record, particularly Ext.P8 judgment.

5. We are aware that Ext.P8 has been delivered by one among us; but since the learned counsel for the parties unequivocally say that they have no objection to this Bench hearing this matter, we proceed to do so.

6. It is without contest that, in Ext.P8, this Court had directed the District Collector to reconsider the value of the property, without there being any assertion impelled that Ext.P1 therein (Ext.P2 in the present case) had not been issued by the appellant.

7. The said judgment was delivered as early as on 20.02.2017; and after a lapse of a few months, the present Writ Petition was filed, wherein, a contention is projected that Ext.P2 is not a genuine document and is not acceptable in law. When it is expressly admitted that the appellant did not carry an Appeal against Ext.P8 judgment, no fault can be attributed to the learned Single Judge in having accepted the said judgment and in having proceeded to say that the eligibility of the appellant to compensation would only be as per the consent given by him, namely Ext.P2.

8. When we cannot accept the contention that Ext.P2 is not genuine for the reasons above, the surviving question is under what law or provision the appellant would be entitled to compensation. We do not have to search for this answer because, Ext.P8 itself makes it perspicuous that the District Collector was to reconsider the value of the property surrendered by the appellant as per Ext.P2, based on the circulars and instructions of the government relating to lands subjected to negotia