P. C. JACOB Vs. GCDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT . P2 notice issued by the first respondent is challenged by the petitioner. Petitioner is the owner of 10 cents of property in Sy. No. 386/6B in Rameswaram Village, Kochi Taluk. For the purpose of widening A. K. Xavier Road under the Rameswaram west Town Planning Scheme first respondent initiated land acquisition proceedings through the second respondent. They wanted to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner. After issuing necessary notification third respondent passed an award and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the property on 29-12-1983. Ext. P1 is the award notice. Rs. 23,331.03 is the compensation amount. Despite the award, petitioner continued to be in possession of the property. Though the petitioner was informed that he should receive the amount on 31-12-1983 after handing over possession on 29-12-1983 no attempt was made to dispossess him. Later, petitioner was informed by Ext. P2 communication that the first respondent had decided to give back the property to him and that he should deposit Rs. 56,228/- on or before 31-10-1991 failing which he has to pay 18% interest.

(2.) IN a case where award has been passed under the Land Acquisition Act but possession not taken pursuant to it, the question to be considered is whether the amount deposited by the first respondent with the third respondent for acquiring the property can be realised from the petitioner with interest. Counsel for the first respondent contended that the petitioner was very well aware of the acquisition proceedings and as he was informed of the amount awarded and as he was called upon to appear before the third respondent to receive the award amount after surrendering possession of the property, he cannot continue to remain in possession as the first respondent alone has any valid right to the property. Counsel further contended that if the petitioner wants to get the property back he will have to pay the award amount including the interest thereon. Petitioner's contention is that so long as he has not been dispossessed from the property the first respondent does not get any title to it and merely because an award has been passed on the basis of the notification first respondent cannot demand the amount and interest from him. Counsel pointed out that the first respondent could have invoked S.47 of the Act to get possession of the property and as that has not been done it cannot claim the amount merely on the ground that an award has been passed.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY petitioner has not received the award amount. Though the petitioner was informed as per Ext. P1 that an award was passed in his favour, he did not receive the amount. There is no evidence of he being dispossessed from the property. In Para.4 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that the first respondent decided to drop the proposal for widening the A. K. Xavier Road. Thus, the position is that though the acquisition proceedings were initiated with respect to petitioner's property and an award was passed he was not dispossessed from the property. Merely because the first respondent has deposited the award amount with the third respondent it cannot be held that the petitioner is liable to pay the award amount which he did not receive and interest thereon. As petitioner has not received the award amount and as he is not dispossessed from the property, he cannot be held liable for the amount deposited by the first respondent with the third respondent.