Kerala High Court
K.Suresh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2011
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/2ND CHAITHRA 1934
WP(C).No. 4408 of 2012 (A)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
K.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O. MANAKKAL KOODATHINGAL SWAMIKUTTY,
P.O. CHEVAYOOR, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE TALUK
BY ADVS.SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN
SRI.M.N.MANMADAN
SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
KOZHIKODE, P.O. CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE- 673 020.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED SHAFI.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4408 of 2012 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXT P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.554/2008 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOZHIKODE
EXT P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. A. 1647/2006 DATED 03.08.2011
OF TAKING OVER POSSESSION
EXT P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE DEFENDANTS
IN THE SUIT AND OTHER PERSONS TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT
EXT P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY HE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2012
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
PN
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------------
WP(C). No. 4408 of 2012
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2012
JUDGMENT
Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property having an extent of 1 Acre 28 Cents comprised in Sy. No. 61/2 of Nellikkode Village. An extent of 0.0167 Hectors out of the said property was acquired by the respondents for widening of the road lying on the eastern side. Award was passed by the 2nd respondent fixing compensation with respect to the acquisition, on 03.08.2011. Exhibit P2 is the notice of award. But the 2nd respondent has not disbursed the amount of compensation awarded, inspite of representations submitted by the petitioner as per Exhibit P4, is the complaint.
2. It is stated in the writ petition that there exist a dispute with respect to right on a pathway having width of 3 feet, situated on the southern side of the aforesaid property. The petitioner had instituted a Civil suit before the Munsiff's WP(C). No. 4408 of 2012 -2- Court, Kozhikode as O.S. No. 554/2008, against some of the neighbouring residents praying for a decree of recovery of possession of an area alleged to have been encroached by them. It is also stated that the defendants in the said suit had submitted Exhibit P3 letter before the 2nd respondent contenting that the petitioner has no right and title over the said portion of property and that he is not entitled for receive the compensation awarded. Through Exhibit P3 these persons have requested the 2nd respondent to refrain from disbursing amounts to the petitioner. But the contention of the petitioner is that the dispute pending in the civil suit is not with respect to the area of land acquired. Even the persons who are objecting the claim have raised dispute only with respect to a portion of the property acquired. According to the petitioner the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the objections and disbursed amounts to the petitioner discarding such objections. Since no action has been taken in this regard, this writ petition is WP(C). No. 4408 of 2012 -3- filed seeking appropriate directions.
3. In a statement filed by the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that, after passing of the award one Mr. Majeesh and 12 others have filed a joint petition before the 2nd respondent raising dispute regarding disbursal of the compensation amount. They pointed out that a civil suit is pending with respect to a pathway which existed in the property acquired, and therefore the petitioner has no right to receive the compensation. It is further stated that the petitioner have also submitted a representation stating that the 13 persons who had objected the grant of compensation have no right over the property. According to the 2nd respondent there exist a dispute with respect to the right over the acquired land and it is a matter which need be settled by the competent Court of law, under Section 31. Therefore steps has been initiated to deposit the compensation amount before the Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode as provided under Section 31 (2) of the Land WP(C). No. 4408 of 2012 -4- Acquisition Act, 1894, is the submission.
4. Sri. A. Balagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent ought to have looked into merits of the claim raised by the objectors and should have reached at a conclusion that such objections are unsustainable and that the petitioner is entitled for receipt of the compensation awarded. He further contended that, even it could have been noticed that the objection is only with respect to a small extent of land within the acquired property and the 2nd respondent ought to have disburse compensation to the petitioner, after keeping the proportionate amount due with respect to such portion. Going by the provisions contained in Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, I am afraid that such a proposition can be accepted. As per Section 31 if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or with respect to the apportioned of the compensation, the Collector is bound to deposit the amount in the Court to which a reference under WP(C). No. 4408 of 2012 -5- Section 18 would be submitted. In the case at hand it is evident that in Exhibit P3 the objectors have submitted that the petitioner has no absolute ownership or title over the property which was acquired and that they claim certain rights over a portion of the property which was acquired. Going by scheme of the statue, if there exist any dispute with respect to title to receive the compensation the Collector has to refer the matter for adjudication by the Civil Court. The adjudication on the merits of the objections is not suppose to be undertaken by the Collector. Especially in this case it is noticed that there exist a Civil suit on certain aspects pertaining to the rights of usage of a pathway as well as with respect to recovery of possession of certain properties in the possession of the defendants. Hence I am of the view that the 2nd respondent was justified in taking a decision to make a reference as contemplated under Section 31 (2).
5. However, in view of the facts and circumstances WP(C). No. 4408 of 2012 -6- prevailing, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to make deposit of the amount covered under the award in question before the Sub Court at the earliest, at any rate within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Civil court, if the deposit is made to get the amount transferred to any interest bearing deposit.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE /True copy/ P. A. to Judge Pn