MATHEW JOSHUA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One acre and 73 cents of land in Sy. No. 413/2 of Elamkulam Village, belonged to petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 was acquired by the State. Before that, notification under S.12(5) of Town Planning Act was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 17-6-1975 regarding the proposal for a Town Planning Scheme, for Elamkulam Road. On 28-9-1976, the 3rd respondent issued a notification under S.3(1) proposing to acquire the said land. Respondents 1 to 3 wanted to obtain advance possession in the year 1977 and the petitioners surrendered possession of the land on 26-10-1977. Ext. PI is the surrender kychit. Petitioners allege that the land was surrendered on the assurance given by the Chairman of the 2nd respondent that compensation for the land would be paid within one week of the surrender. The petitioners expressed their willingness to accept compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.800/- per cent. Ultimately, petitioners agreed that land value at the rate of Rs. l,000/- per cent may be paid to the petitioners. Accordingly, petitioners and other coowners executed Ext. P2 agreement. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- alone was paid towards compensation. Petitioners further allege that respondents 2 and 3 did not either pay the compensation to the petitioners within a week or complete the acquisition proceedings as agreed. In the circumstances, petitioners moved O.P. No. 8808/83 before this court seeking to quash the land acquisition proceedings and restore possession of the land to the petitioners. While the Original Petition was pending, an award No. 48/86 was passed on the basis of Ext. P2 agreement dated 2-5-78. Ext. P3 is the award. According to petitioners, the respondents did not act as per the agreement. They would contend that the valuation was adopted in the agreement on the assurance that compensation would be paid in one week's time, but that was not done and that though eight years elapsed since the expiry of time fixed for payment, the 3rd respondent did not apply to the question relating to the market value of the land and other relevant matters before passing the award. They also averred that no enhanced solatium or benefits conferred by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1984 were paid to them.

(2.) Petitioners filed an application under S.20 of Land Acquisition Act seeking a reference of the question of enhanced compensation. Ext. P4 is the application for reference. The 3rd respondent sent Ext. P6 communication stating that the award was passed as per the agreement executed between the G.C.D.A. and the petitioners on 2-7-1988 and therefore the reference sought is in violation of Clause.3 of the above agreement. In this Original Petition, petitioners have challenged Ext. P6.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as the respondents have violated the provisions of the agreement Ext. P2 and did not pay the amount within the time the petitioners are not bound by the agreement. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event, the 3rd respondent is bound under the law to refer the question of compensation to the Civil Court.