ALIYAMMA MATHAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's parents were the joint owners in possession of 50 cents of property comprised in Survey No. 522/16 of Vallurkunnam Village. Out of the said extent, in respect of 0.1246 Ares of land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act 1894') to acquire the same from their possession. While the acquisition proceedings are under way they died and thereupon, the property devolved upon the legal heirs including the petitioner herein. In respect of the said extent proposed to be acquired Ext. P2 notice under S.9(3) of Act, 1894 was issued. Ext. P2 is dated 04/02/2014. The contention of the petitioner is that since the Act 1894 was repealed with effect from 01/01/2014 and the new Act viz., Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Act 30 of 2013') was introduced with effect from 01/01/2014 notice under the repealed Act should not have been issued. That apart, it is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the provisions under S.24(2) of Act 30 of 2013 in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Act but, no award was passed thereunder the determination of the compensation shall be in accordance with the provisions under the Act 30 of 2013. If that be so, according to the petitioner, Ext. P2 notice should not have been issued and notice should have been issued in terms of the provisions under the Act 30 of 2013. To lend support to the said contention the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Musirimal Solanki, 2014 (1) KHC 580 : 2014 (1) KLT 470 (SC) : 2014 (1) SCALE 618 : 2014 (3) SCC 183 : AIR 2014 SC 982 . In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Clause (a) of S.24(1) of the Act 30 of 2013 where the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the Act 1894 but no award was passed, then the provisions of Act 30 of 2013 should apply relating to the determination of compensation.

(2.) I have heard the learned Government Pleader as well. A counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. It is admitted therein that the acquisition proceedings have been initiated in respect of the property in question while the Act, 1894 was in force. It is also admitted thereunder that Ext. P2 notice was issued after the coming into force of Act 30 of 2013. It is the further contention therein that notice under S.9(3) of the Act, 1894 was issued to the persons including the petitioner, whose properties are proposed to be acquired under the notification in question only for the purpose of appearing before the Land Acquisition Officer on or before the appointing day with original documents to prove their title over the land and file claims and objections. It is further stated therein that despite the receipt of such notice none of them appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer or produced any document to prove their ownership over the land in question. It is also stated therein that the acquisition proceedings in question are in the final stage. A statement in paragraph 10 assumes relevance in this context. It reads thus:

(3.) In the context of the aforesaid statement in paragraph 10 of the counter - affidavit it is relevant to refer to S.1(3) of Act 30 of 2013. It reads thus: