Compliance with procedural requirements in land acquisition is mandated to ensure fair compensation and transparency.

JUDGMENT

For ease of reference, the facts and circumstances, as pointed out in W.P.(C) No.19221 of 2023 is referred.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition is stated to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of 98 cents of land in Re-survey No.3/1B of Keezhallur village on the basis of a partition deed of the year 1986. Acquisition proceedings were taken by the Government for the purpose of the construction of the Kannur Airport. The Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (KINFRA) purchased an extent of 90 cents, which was the only extent of property available as per the title deed. On measuring the property, the actual property available was less than the extent mentioned in the title deed, and therefore compensation was paid only to that extent. The issue is essentially as to whether, in a situation where there is a dispute as regards the remaining land, the procedure under Rule 18(4) of the Right to fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Kerala) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), requires to be followed or not. In an earlier round of litigation, by judgment dated 24.11.2020 in W.P.(C) No.14350 of 2020, this Court issued the following directions.

“14. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent Special Tahsildar to consider the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 objections, in terms of the provisions under sub-rule (4) of Rule 18 of the Kerala Rules, read with sub- rules (5) and (6) of Rule 18, taking note of the legal and factual contentions raised in Ext.P6 statement dated 15.10.2020, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Till the said objection/claim is resolved in accordance with law, the land in question shall be marked as ‘disputed property’ in the revenue records, as provided in sub-rule (6) of Rule 18 of the Kerala Rules.

15. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC

309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [ (2011) 10 SCC 259 ] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

16. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent Special Tahsildar shall take an appropriate decision on the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions.”

3. Even after positive directions as above, the impugned communication at Ext.P11 dated 14.03.2023 has been issued by the 3^rd respondent, essentially pointing out that though an inspection has been conducted in the property, since the amounts have been deposited under the provisions of Section 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act , 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the reference court, further proceedings could not be initiated. It is in such circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P11 referred to above. The facts and circumstances of the connected cases are also more or less the same.

4. Heard Sri. Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, learned counsel for the respective petitioners, as well as Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader, for the respondents herein.

5. T