Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Koyyodan Cheriya Kannan vs District Collector, Kannur on 2 December, 2014
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 34444 of 2013)
KOYYODAN CHERIYA KANNAN & ORS … Appellants
VERSUS
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR AND ORS … Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10801 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34894 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10802 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34947 of 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10803 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35578 of 2013
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10804 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9064 of 2014
AND
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 564 OF 2014
O R D E R
Leave granted in the special leave petitions. The land losers are before this Court as they are aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.06.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No. 858 of 2013 affirming the common judgment and order dated 16.01.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, who have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders of the Land Acquisition Collector by rejecting their applications filed CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 2 under Section 28(A)(3) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 to grant the market value as re-determined in Award passed by the reference court in the case LAR No. 120/87 in respect of the land of appellants herein on the ground that the compensation awarded by the reference court in relation to the above award is applicable to the lands of the appellants herein for the reason that the land of the awardees covered in the award referred to supra and the land of these appellants was acquired against the same notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the potentiality of the land of the appellants and that of the land covered in the said award is one and the same. The applications were required to be filed by the appellants but not in the prescribed Form 22A under Rule 16(A) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules framed by the Kerala State, however the required particulars were furnished in the applications claiming the benefit of the same monetary benefits of compensation as has been awarded in respect of the Award passed by the reference court of the similarly placed land owners as that of the appellants whose land was also acquired for the same public purpose against the same notifications and potentiality of the land is same. The said applications of the appellants were rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector on technical grounds, which is wholly untenable in law.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Ms. Liz Mathew, justified the impugned judgment CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 3 and order, inter alia, by contending that the applications filed by the appellants were not only not in the prescribed form Rule 22(A) but also the writ petitions were filed belatedly before the High Court and therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly rejected the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has rightly affirmed the rejection of the claim made by the appellants under Section 28(A)(3) by the Land Acquisition Collector and the order of the learned Single Judge is correctly not interfered with by the learned Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by passing the impugned common Judgment and order by dismissing the appeal by assigning valid reasons and therefore the same need not be interfered with by this Court.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the appellants are before this Court seeking for grant of relief as prayed in the writ petitions by allowing these Appeals.
We have heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Liz Mathew, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. We are required to examine this matter keeping in view the constitutional and fundamental rights conferred upon the appellant/ land losers by the Constitution of India and also the object and the intentment of the provision of Section 28(A)(3) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 giving statutory right of claiming compensation on parity as that of similarly placed. The land losers have been solely depending upon the agricultural occupation to eke out their CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 4 and their family members livelihood. We have considered the rights of the parties keeping in view the constitutional and fundamental rights of the appellants and examined the correctness of the decision taken by both the Land Acquisition Collector and the constitutional court, viz., the High Court of Kerala. The rejection of their applications filed under Section 28(A)(3) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 by the Land Acquisition Collector for the reason that the appellants have not filed claim petitions in the Form 22(A), which is prescribed under Rule 16(A) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules, which approach of them is highly technical. Time and again, this court in number of cases has laid down the law that when a litigant approaches a court of law or constitutional court, they are required to examine the substance of the matter having regard to the constitutional and fundamental rights of the constitution conferred upon litigants in the matter.
The applications of the claims under Section 28(A)(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector which is affirmed by the High Court on technical grounds which is wholly unjustified. Therefore, the findings and the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the impugned judgment and orders are not valid in law and therefore, they are liable to be set aside. The said findings and reasons assigned in the impugned judgment and order is that the appellants have approached the Court belatedly and their applications are CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 5 not filed in the prescribed form are also not tenable in law. The land losers' hardship to approach the court of law for various reasons within the reasonable period cannot be a ground for rejection of their legitimate right of awarding reasonable compensation towards their acquired land. It is very difficult for the land losers to approach the constitutional courts to agitate the matter against the mighty State by engaging lawyer and meeting the legal expenses, which would be very difficult for them. It is too much on the part of the State and its officers to take a plea that the claim cannot be examined merely because the applications are not filed in Form No. 22(A) before the Land Acquisition Collector claiming the compensation on par with the similarly situated persons in the Award referred to supra passed by the reference court. It is the statutory duty on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector to examine that the land losers are paid just and reasonable compensation towards their acquired land. Aggrieved of the arbitrary action of the Land Acquisition Collector in rejecting their applications on technical grounds, the land losers have to approach this Court seeking for redressal of their grievance. It is a pitiable condition for them to get their constitutional rights enforced from this Court to get just and reasonable compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector and the State Government have made the land losers travel from one court to another, which approach of them is not reasonable and justifiable.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 6
We have to remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Collector to examine the claim of the land losers.
For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed in the writ appeals and allow the writ petitions. We remand the matter to the Land Acquisition Collector to examine the claim afresh made by the land losers under Section 28(A)(3) of the Land Acquisition Act with reference to the LAR No. 120/87 passed by the reference court. The appellants are at liberty to furnish other particular as prescribed under Form 22A of the Rules as may be necessary to the Land Acquisition Collector within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Land Acquisition Collector is required to examine the claim of the appellant-land losers within six weeks thereafter with reference to the market value determined in the award passed in favour of the other land owners of their land which was acquired under the notifications along with land of the land losers herein strictly as provided under Section 28(A)(3) of the Act. After careful examination, if the Land Acquisition Collector finds the appellant-land losers entitled to the market value determined in the award passed of the similar land owners, the said benefit shall be extended to the appellants also along with the statutory benefits provided under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the Land Acquisition Collector rejects their claim, the appellants/land losers are entitled to get the same referred to the Jurisdictional CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 7 Reference Court for adjudication of the market value of their land on par with the awardee of the Award already passed in favour of other land owners.
With the abovesaid observation/liberty/direction to the Land Acquisition Collector, these appeals are allowed. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.564 OF 2014 Rule nisi.
The writ petition is allowed in the above said terms. The other particulars as prescribed under Form 22A be furnished, as may be necessary, within two months of the receipt of the copy of this order.
..................., J.
[ V. GOPALA GOWDA ] ..................., J.
[ C. NAGAPPAN ] New Delhi;
December 02, 2014.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 8
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34444/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/06/2013 in WA No. 858/2013 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam) KOYYODAN CHERIYA KANNAN & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR AND ORS Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 34894/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 34947/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 35578/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) W.P.(C) No. 564/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 9064/2014 (With Office Report) Date : 02/12/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, Adv. Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mr. K. M. Augutine, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Ashly Harshad, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv.CIVIL APPEAL NO.10800 of 2014 etc. 9
For Respondent(s) Ms. Liz Mathew, Adv.
Mr. M. F. Philip, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP (C) No. 34444 of 2013 SLP(C) No. 34894/2013 SLP(C) No. 34947/2013 SLP(C) No. 35578/2013 SLP(C) No. 9064/2014 Leave granted in the special leave petitions. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.W.P.(C) No. 564/2014
Rule nisi.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file.]