Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46806
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
M G SREEKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 20357/2016
A compensation claimed under protest under the Land Acquisition Act entitles the claimant to seek judicial adjudication on adequacy.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act - Section 18 - The court emphasized the petitioner's right to adjudicate compensation adequacy when received under protest, mandating referral to civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had his land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and received compensation under protest, seeking a referral for adjudication which was delayed.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's request for referral to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act was appropriately addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that a compensation received under protest necessitates adjudication of adequacy, as per the user's legal rights under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the issue is directed to be referred to civil court within one month.
JUDGMENT
A land owned by the petitioner has been acquired for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short). According to the petitioner, he was dissatisfied with the award passed and consequently he received the compensation covered by the award under protest and required the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for adjudication by the civil court as provided for under Section 18 of the Act. Exhibit P3 is the application submitted by the petitioner in this connection seeking reference of the issue for adjudication by the court. It is alleged by the petitioner that though Exhibit P3 application was preferred as early as on 5.10.2008, the matter is still not referred for adjudication.
2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that though the compensation covered by the award was received by the petitioner under protest, the file maintained at the office of the Land Acquisition Officer does not indicate that the petitioner has submitted any application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Government Pleader, however, is not in a position to assert that the petitioner had not submitted an application for reference.
3. Exhibit P5 is the cheque issued in Form D to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Officer towards the compensation payable to him. Exhibit P5 indicates that the cheque has been received by the petitioner under protest. If the petitioner had received the amount covered by the award under protest, there is no reason for me to think that the petitioner would not have submitted an application for reference. In the circumstances, it is only just and proper to accept the case set up by the petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to refer the issue relating to the adequacy of compensation granted to the petitioner to the civil court for adjudication, as provided for under Section 18 of the Act. This shall be done within one month from today.
