PADMAVATHI AMMA Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the Appellant and Respondents to seek remedy in respect of the matter before the Civil Court. We have heard counsel for the Appellant and Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are the following. Appellant's 23 sq. metres of land with a small building thereon situated on the road side in Trivandrum was acquired for widening the road. The total compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the small extent of land and building was Rs. 2,59,739/-. The case of the Land Acquisition Officer is that even though notice was issued for taking over advance possession and compensation was also fixed, possession was in fact not taken over. However, when possession was taken, the small building situated in the land was seen demolished. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer by a subsequent order reduced the compensation originally fixed and payable to the Appellant from Rs. 2,59,739/-to Rs. 1,34,332/-. It is against the reduction of compensation the Appellant filed the Writ Petition contending that the Land Acquisition Officer has no authority to do so. The case of the Land Acquisition Officer is that building would have been demolished and taken away by the Appellant and so much so, Appellant is not entitled to compensation for the building and the eligibility for compensation for her is only for the land. The Appellant had specifically denied having demolished or taken away the building materials and on this ground Appellant opposed reduction in the compensation amount. After hearing both sides, learned Single Judge felt that the question to be decided is a pure civil dispute as to who has in fact demolished and taken away the building materials, which will certainly involve a finding as to whether physical possession was really taken by the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of notice for taking over advance possession.

(3.) After hearing both sides we feel the relief granted by the learned Single Judge is neither justified nor desirable or practical because Appellant, an old lady in her 70s, if sent to the Civil Court for settling this issue, probably will have to spent rest of her life in litigation. Besides this, we find one more reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because the order impugned in the W.P.(C) i.e. reduction of compensation, is not sustainable for the reasons which are discussed hereunder.