The court ruled that affected parties must receive fair compensation under the applicable laws, specifically invoking the 2013 Act in the absence of an award under the prior Act.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.38234/2023, 31232/2025, 33569/2025, 35435/2025, 35792/2025, 37941/2023]

The properties of the petitioners were acquired in con-nection with the construction of the seaport - airport road. The petitioners contend that, though the land acquisition pro- ceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Land Ac- quisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), no award with reference to the provisions of Section 11 of the Act was issued. In such circumstances, the petitioners rely on the provisions of Section 24 (1)A of the Right to Fair Com- pensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilita- tion and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘New Act’), to contend that the award requires to be is- sued under the provisions of the New Act. It is pointing out the afore, that the petitioners are before this Court, seeking for a direction to the respondents herein to pass awards un-der the provisions of the New Act. 2026:KER:15896 & 35792/2025, 37941/2023

2. Heard Smt.Rose Michael, learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions, Smt.S.L.Sylaja, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the State as well as Smt.Resmitha R.Chandran, learned Standing Counsel for the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala (Ltd.).

3. A similar issue has already been considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.36637 of 2018 dated 15.11.2018, wherein paragraph 7 reads as under:

“7. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 3^rd respondent will ensure that the requests for reference made out by the respective petitioners in Ext.P-5 is referred to the compe- tent authority as envisaged in Sec. 64 without any further delay so that the merits of the claims made by the peti- tioners for higher benefits are adjudicated and decided by the competent authority concerned in accordance with the provisions contained in the new Act. Out of equitable con- sideration, it is ordered that until final award/final decision is rendered by the competent authority in the abovesaid reference process in relation to the matter covered by Ext.P-5 in these cases, the impugned demand made as per Ext.P-6 for refund of the differential amount, will be kept in abeyance. The question as to whether the petitioners are liable for any refund as demanded in Ext.P-6 would be subject to the final outcome of the deci- sion of the competent authority in the abovesaid reference process. If the petitioners are granted higher benefits in the said reference process compared to the amounts that are already disbursed to them as per Ext.P-1 pre-revised award, then the petitioner concerned is not entitled to claim any interest on the differential amounts concerned viz., Rs. 1,94,969/- in W.P.(C). No.36615/2018 and Rs. 9,40,249/- in W.P.(C). No.36637/2018, from the date of receipt of the amounts as envisaged in Sec.80 of the new Act from the date of actual receipt of those differential amounts concerned. On the other hand, if it is held in the abovesaid reference pro- cess, that the petitioners are entitled for only for the amounts which are less than the amounts already granted and disbursed as per Ext.P-1 award, then they are liable to refund the actual differential amount involved from the date of receipt of the said amounts upto date of refund along with due interest. Fine tuned aspects of the matters may be dealt with by the competent authority while ren- dering the final award/ decision in the abovesaid reference process.”

4. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefits. In the case at hand also, demand notices have been issued, seeking pay- ment of the differential amount.

Accordingly, these writ petitions would stand disposed of in terms of the directions contained in pa