Landowners must receive compensation under equitable principles, irrespective of agreement shortcomings, as per statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of August 2020 The petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

A. Declare that the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation for acquisition of their land as per the provisions of “the Act”, B. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and quash Exhibits P8 and P9, C. Direct the respondents to fix and award compensation to the petitioners at market value as per “the Act”, D. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and direct the respondents to refer the claim of the petitioners for enhancement of compensation under “the Act” to the competent court, E. The costs of the petitioners and F. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

2. The land belonging to the petitioners and others has been acquired for the purpose of construction of Vettukadavu Bridge across Chalakudy river and approach road. It appears that there was an agreement to pay the compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act 30 of 2013). The petitioners, therefore, seek the above reliefs. The issue is covered in favour of the petitioners in W.A. No. 2158 of 2017 . In paragraph 24 of the aforesaid judgment, it is stated as follows:

24. Now, it is brought to our notice that in about 12 agreements of sale, the above extracted-clause concerning the enhanced compensation in terms of the new Act is absent. First, we must not forget that it is the State or its instrumentality that has entered into the contract. Second, inadvertent absence of the clause in certain agreements of similarly placed landowners should not act to their prejudice. Lest it should reek discrimination and inequity. In other words, those landowners, too, should be treated on a par with others with the protective clause in their agreements of sale.

The learned Government Pleader also does not dispute the fact that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioners.

3. In the light of the above judgment, the petitioners'

compensation shall be determined in accordance with the Act 30 of 2013. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i. The petitioners shall execute a sale deed, on receipt of the balance 20% of the consideration. This shall be done within a period of two months.

ii. The execution of the sale deed is without prejudice to the petitioners' claim for enhancement of compensation, under Section 64 of the Act 30 of 2013.

iii. The sale deed shall be treated as a deemed award.

iv. The reference shall be made within a further period of four weeks before the competent authority.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

akv/ 14.8.2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT)NO.3085/14/RD DATED

05/07/2014.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON

26/05/2015.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED

26/05/2015 FROM PETITIONER & WIFE.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED

04/11/2016 BY 1ST PETITIONER & WIFE.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED

21/10/2016 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY F392/14 DATED 09/01/2017 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY F135/14 DATED

27/01/2017.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER E6-18736/10 DATED

10/11/2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER & WIFE.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER E6-18736/10(2) DATED

10/11/2017 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE