Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 5 (KER)

MADHAVAN v. DY. COLLECTOR

1989-01-04

SREEDHARAN

body1989
Judgment :- 1. An unique question as to whether an award passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act will become invalidate on account of the delay in taking possession of the land, arises for consideration. 2. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of the Original Petition are as follows: " The petitioner is the owner of 9.56 Acres of land comprised in survey No. 435/3 of Kumbalam Village. That land, along with the properties adjoining the same, was notified u/S. 3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Kerala Act', as likely to be needed for the proposed Fisheries College at Kumbalam. That notification was published in the Gazette dated 25-9-1979. After complying with the formalities, declaration u/S. 6 of the Kerala Act was published in the Gazette dated 26-10-1980. Enquiry contemplated by S.9 of the Kerala Act was conducted on 10-12-1980. The petitioner filed a claim statement. He demanded Rs. 5,000/- per cent. On 28-2-1981 Award No.9/1981 was passed by the Collector fixing Rs. 20,988.65/-as the compensation. Notice u/S. 12(2) of the Kerala Act was served on the petitioner on 24-4-1981. That notice stated that the compensation amount has been deposited in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam, u/S. 32 of the Kerala Act. Nothing further was heard in the matter. The petitioner was not dispossessed. Nor did he receive any notice from the Civil Court to which the matter was stated to have been referred u/S. 32 of the Kerala Act. Ext.P1 dated 23-9-1987 was served on the petitioner calling upon him to vacate and deliver the possession of the land covered by the Award on or before 26-10-1987. The petitioner sent Ext.P2 representation stating that since the amount was not paid to him or deposited before court, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed. As he was not favoured with any reply to Ext.P2 he has approached this court by filing this Original Petition on 6-7-1988. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is averred therein that the petitioner did not produce necessary documents of title to prove his right to the property covered by the acquisition proceedings and so the compensation amount was ordered to be deposited in Civil Court u/S. 32 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. Notice to that effect was served on the petitioner on 24-4-1981. It is averred therein that the petitioner did not produce necessary documents of title to prove his right to the property covered by the acquisition proceedings and so the compensation amount was ordered to be deposited in Civil Court u/S. 32 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. Notice to that effect was served on the petitioner on 24-4-1981. In response to the award notice the petitioner submitted a petition for referring the case for enhancement of compensation u/S. 20 of the Kerala Act. It is further averred that certain persons interested in the land covered by the notification started agitation against the taking-over possession of the properties, that a number of conciliation meetings were held, that the Government after consideration of their grievances accorded sanction to allow 4 cents of alternate land to each of the families sought to be evicted from the acquired area, that those persons challenged the acquisition proceedings before this court in O.P. 364/1984, that by judgment dated 7-10-1985 this court directed the Collector to dispose of the claims of the petitioners therein, that the District Collector by order dated 7-1-1986 ordered to allot alternate land to those persons and that the delay in taking possession was occasioned on account of the above agitation and proceedings before this court. It is also stated that there was no undue delay in taking possession of the property and that the award is not open to challenge. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the averments made in the counter affidavit. According to him, he was never a party to the agitation launched by some against the acquisition proceedings or to the Original Petition filed before this court. According to him, mere passing of an award is not sufficient to satisfy the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, that money should have been paid in pursuance to the award or deposited in court. If the money was so paid or deposited in civil court the petitioner could have made use of that to acquire alternate site. On account of this delay in paying the money the petitioner is deprived of using the same in a profitable manner on account of the huge inflation. 5. The learned Government Pleader made available to me the entire files relating to the acquisition of the petitioner's land. On account of this delay in paying the money the petitioner is deprived of using the same in a profitable manner on account of the huge inflation. 5. The learned Government Pleader made available to me the entire files relating to the acquisition of the petitioner's land. From the files it is seen that the petitioner put in a representation on 10-12-1980 before the Land Acquisition Officer undertaking to produce the original title deed or a certified copy of the same within one month therefrom. That document was not produced. Consequently in the notice issued u/S. 12(2) of the Kerala Act it was mentioned that the amount of compensation fixed in the Award, viz., Rs. 20,988.65 has been deposited in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam, u/S. 32 of the Kerala Act. From the files it is not seen that the amount was deposited before the said court as stated in the notice. The file shows that reference u/S. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was made to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam, on 28-7-1988. On the same day reference u/S. 18 of the Central Act of 1894 was also made to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. References u/Ss.18 and 30 of the Act of 1894 are pending before the Subordinate Judge's Court Ernakulam. 6. As stated earlier, the award was passed on 28-2-1981. References u/Ss.18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were made to the Civil Court on 28-7-1988. Property covered by the award has not been taken possession of till date. Can the delay in making the reference to the court or the delay caused in taking possession of the land be a ground for quashing an award ? 7. Under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act no time was fixed for passing the award after the publication of notification u/S. 3 of the Kerala Act. When there occurred inordinate delay in passing the award after the notification, this court has on many Occasions quashed the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Act. Unlike those cases, in this instance the Collector passed the award within two years of the notification u/S. 3 of the Kerala Act. The award was passed on 28-2-1981. The award notice was served on the petitioner on 24-4-1981. Till Ext. P1 notice dated 23-9-1987, no step was taken by the Collector to take possession of the property. Unlike those cases, in this instance the Collector passed the award within two years of the notification u/S. 3 of the Kerala Act. The award was passed on 28-2-1981. The award notice was served on the petitioner on 24-4-1981. Till Ext. P1 notice dated 23-9-1987, no step was taken by the Collector to take possession of the property. He did not deposit the amount covered by the award before the civil court as stated in the notice issued u/S. 12 (2) of the Kerala Act. Consequently, there occurred a delay of nearly seven years in taking possession of the property or depositing money in court. The property will vest in the State free from encumbrances only on taking possession by the Collector. Since the property has not been taken possession till date, it continues to be owned by the petitioner. He was in enjoyment of the same. His right to alienate the same was curtailed. On account of that he could not take the benefit of the enhancement in land value. Is this a reasonable ground to quash the proceedings initiated for acquiring the same as also the award passed by the Collector ? The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, has made provisions for safeguarding the interest of owners whose lands have been acquired, on account of the delay caused in finalising the acquisition proceedings. S.23, 28, 30 etc. of the Act of 1894 are some of the provisions which will go to show that the Legislature has sufficiently safeguarded the interest of owners, whose lands have been acquired. The delay caused in referring the matter to the civil court and the delay in taking possession of the property by the Collector are matters to be taken note of by the civil court to which reference u/S. 18 of the Central Act has been made in awarding adequate compensation to the petitioner. Now the money covered by the Award has been deposited in court and the court is seized of the matter. All these years the petitioner continue to enjoy the property. Since the petitioner's rights are adequately protected and will be taken care by the civil court to which reference is made, I do not find any ground to quash the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 8. All these years the petitioner continue to enjoy the property. Since the petitioner's rights are adequately protected and will be taken care by the civil court to which reference is made, I do not find any ground to quash the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 8. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in this Original Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Issue carbon copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.