Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 47 (KER)

Prasanna Kumari Amma v. District Collector

2007-01-12

K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

body2007
Judgment :- K. Padmanabhan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of 6.250 Cents of land comprised in Survey No.425/13 in Vanchiyoor Village and the buildings situated in that property. The property and buildings were acquired by the respondents for the expansion of International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram. An award was passed on 21.6.2003 awarding an amount of Rs.2,64,496/- to the petitioner but the same was not disbursed to the petitioner on the ground that she did not produce her title deed. The petitioner and other challenged the entire land acquisition proceedings in O.P. No.9708/1999 before this Court. There was an interim order which was subsequently modified by this Court by which an option was given to land owners. It was ordered that those who are willing to surrender the land can surrender the same. O.P. No.9708/99 was dismissed on 20.6.2003. Challenging that judgment some of: the petitioners in the original petition filed Writ Appeal No.1262/2003 on 31.7.2003. The appeal came up before the Division Bench on 1.8.2003. The Writ Appeal was admitted and an interim order was passed to the effect that not to dispossess the appellants from their properties. That interim order was in force till 14.9.2004 on which date the same was vacated. 2. According to the petitioner on receipt of the copy of the award, she submitted an application under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act in the prescribed format. It is averred that the 1st respondent has not referred the matter to the Sub Court and hence a direction may be issued to refer the matter to the Sub Court. The Land Acquisition Officer filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner did not file any application within 42 days from 21 6.2003, the date of passing of the award. 3. It is also contended that this Court by interim order dated 9.4.1999 in C.M.P. No.16008/99 in O.P. No.9708/99 stayed the dispossession of land for 3 months. The said stay order has been extended until further orders on 7.6.1999. Subsequently the interim orders passed in C.M.P. No.38627/99 in O.P. No.4036/99, C.M.P. No.12309/2000 in O.P. No.7386/2000 and C.M.P. No.38664/1999 and O.P. No.9708/99 were modified permitting the Land Acquisition Officer to take possession of the land from those who are willing to surrender. It is further submitted that the stay was vacated by this Court on 18-6-2003. Subsequently the interim orders passed in C.M.P. No.38627/99 in O.P. No.4036/99, C.M.P. No.12309/2000 in O.P. No.7386/2000 and C.M.P. No.38664/1999 and O.P. No.9708/99 were modified permitting the Land Acquisition Officer to take possession of the land from those who are willing to surrender. It is further submitted that the stay was vacated by this Court on 18-6-2003. It is averred that a notice of award was issued on 21-6-2003 and served on the petitioner on 24-6-2003 and the land was taken in possession on 25-6-2004. It is also averred that the petitioner received the L.A. compensation on 30-6-2004 under protest. It is contended that the petitioner did not file any reference application within 42 days from 24.6.2003 i.e. the date from receipt of notice under S.12(2) of the L.A. Act. It was contended that she had submitted the reference application only on 30-06-2004 which is after the expiry of one year from the receipt of S.12(2) notice and hence barred by limitation. 4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contention that the interim order passed in O.P.No.9708/1999 continued in W.A. No.1262/2003 and the same was in force till 14-9-2004. It is averred that according to the respondents, award notice was served on the petitioner on 24-6-2003 and before the expiry of 6 weeks from that date, a Division Bench of this Court passed a stay order. It is contended that before the dismissal of the stay petition, reference application was filed and hence that application cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. 5. I have perused the file. It is seen that the property owned by the petitioner were acquired. Originally an award was passed on 16-5-2003. Notice under S.12 (2) was served on the petitioner on 24-6-2003. Initially the compensation awarded to the petitioner was not disbursed to her. Subsequently the award passed on 16-5-2003 was modified and the Land Acquisition Officer passed the modified award on 26-6-2004. In the modified award it was stated that an award notice was issued on 21-6-2003 and the petitioner handed over possession of' the land on 25-6-2(104. Hence the award passed on 15-6-2003 was modified and it was ordered that an amount of Rs.2,94,211/- under revenue deposit will he released and paid to the petitioner. In the modified award it was stated that an award notice was issued on 21-6-2003 and the petitioner handed over possession of' the land on 25-6-2(104. Hence the award passed on 15-6-2003 was modified and it was ordered that an amount of Rs.2,94,211/- under revenue deposit will he released and paid to the petitioner. Since a modified award modifying the original award was passed, the petitioner will get a fresh cause of action to file a petition under S. 18 of the Act from the date of modified award. Admittedly, the modified award was passed only on 26.6.2004. The petition under S.18 of the Act was filed within 42 days from date of passing of the modified award. So the stand taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that since the application is filed after 42 days from 15.6.2003 the same is barred by limitation, is clearly illegal. Even accepting the dates given by the respondents, the petition filed by the petitioner is within time and the Land Acquisition Officer is bound to refer the matter under S.18 of the Act to the Subordinate Judge's Court. There is yet another aspect. Even according to respondents there was stay from 9-4- 1999 till 16-8-2003. The award was passed on 15-6-2003 and the first award notice was served on the petitioner on 24-6-2003. The Writ Appeal was filed on 31-7-2003 and the interim order was passed on 1-8-2003 i.e. on the 37th day. The petitioner is entitled to get that period excluded. So she will get 5 days from the order vacating the interim order passed in the Writ Appeal. Admittedly the interim order was vacated only on 14-9-2004. She will get 42 days from 26-6-2004 and before the expiry of that period the application was filed. The application is filed within time. The petitioner filed the petition during the pendency of that interim order. She need only file the application within 5 days from the date on which the interim order was vacated. 6. In any view of the matter the petition filed under S.18 within 42 days from the date of modified award is within time. So the stand taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that the reference application was received only after the expiry of time limit prescribed is illegal and liable to he quashed. 7. In the result this Writ Petition is allowed. So the stand taken by the Land Acquisition Officer that the reference application was received only after the expiry of time limit prescribed is illegal and liable to he quashed. 7. In the result this Writ Petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to treat the petition filed by the petitioner on 30-6-2004 under S.18 (1) of the Act as one filed within the time limit and refer the matter to the Sub Court having jurisdiction of the area for considering the claim of enhancement put forward by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.