Landowner refusal of compensation due to disputes prevents proviso to Section 24(2) benefit for new Act redetermination.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners in this Original Petition (Civil) challenge Ext.P7, the order passed by the reference court on an application, I.A. No.2858 of 2019 in L.A.R. No.34 of 2014. The said application is filed by the petitioners to return the reference to the Land Acquisition Officer for redetermination of the compensation in terms of the provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘Act 30 of 2013’).

2. An extent of 2.75 cents of land is the subject matter of Section 4(1) notification dated 15.6.2011. A declaration underSection 6(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act was approved by notification dated 21.1.2012 and published in the Kerala Gazette (Extra Ordinary) on 23.1.2012, and the award was passed on 29.11.2013. It appears that possession was taken on 12.7.2013, invoking the urgency clause underSection 17of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894. It is stated that 80% of the compensation amount was disbursed to the claimants on 26.7.2013, and the balance was deposited in the court on 20.12.2023 in the form of cheque, and the amount was credited to the court account on 31.12.2013. This was primarily due to the reason that there was a dispute between the various claimants regarding the proportion under which they are entitled to receive compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer immediately on deposit of the amounts sought an adjudication of the disputes underSection 31(2) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act. In the meantime, the claimants also instituted an application seeking higher compensation underSection 18of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Reference Court answered the reference under (2) by judgment dated 5.6.2015. In the meantime, the petitioners had filed an application for enhancement of the compensation under of the Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of the reference, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No.2858 of 2019 for returning the reference to the Land Acquisition Officer for redetermination of the compensation under the proviso toSection 24. The prayer for returning the reference to the Land Acquisition Officer was objected to by the State as well as the requisitioning authority. The reference court took up the application and found that the amount of Rs.83,69,873/- was forwarded to the court being the compensation amount after deducting the income tax and that the proviso to is not attracted to the facts of their case and accordingly refused to accept the plea that the reference should be returned to the Land Acquisition Officer for a fresh consideration.

Accordingly, Ext.P7 order was passed rejecting the request.

3. Heard Sri. T.R.S Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. K. Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Sreegesh, the learned counsel appearing for the 2ndrespondent, Sri. Varghese K. Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rdrespondent and Smt. Nisha George, represented by Sri. Sidharth R. Warrier, the learned counsel appearing for the 4threspondent.

4. Sri. T.R.S Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [2020 (8) SCC 129] :[AIR 2020 SC 1496] and contended that the words ‘paid’ and ‘deposited’ have a huge difference. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court for lapsation of the acquisition proceedings under the old Act squarely applies to the present proceedings as well. It is further pointed out that the word ‘paid’ used under Section 24(2) does not include within its meaning the word ‘de