KANDIYIL ABDUL NAZER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C.) No. 11902/2016 first.

(2.) The respondents acquired 0.0276 hectares of land belonged to the petitioner in the year 2004 as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The father of the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and produced copy of the title deed executed in favour of the petitioner. But, it is submitted that the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P1 award and deposited the amount in the court and referred the matter under Sec.30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Sub Court subsequently found in Ext.P2 award in LAR No. 399/2014 that the petitioner is the only claimant entitled for the award amount. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 17/8/2015 and the copy is received on 28/10/2015. Thereafter, Ext.P3 application is submitted to the 2nd respondent seeking reference under Sec. 18 of the Act for adjudication of the claim for enhanced compensation by the Sub Court. But the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order rejecting Ext.P3 application holding that the same is hopelessly time barred. According to the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer has made reference to the Sub Court under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In such situation, the right to receive the compensation under the award would crystallise after the order is made by the Sub Court in favour of the said claimant. According to the petitioner, only thereafter, a reference under Sec. 18 for the enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed by the Sub Court in the reference under Sec. 30 of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that Ext.P3 application is within time. Hence, this writ petition is filed with following prayers :

(3.) As far as this case is concerned, 0.0204 hectares (5.10 cents) of land from the petitioner and others were notified under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 23/2/2006. But the compensation fixed by the 2nd respondent is deposited in the court because of the rival claimants and it has been referred to sub court. The sub court found that claimants A to G and L to N are the legitimate claimants and passed Ext.P2 award on 31/10/2014 fixing apportionment of shares. The writ petitioner is A claimant before the Sub Court. It is submitted that the petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment on 4/11/2014 and copy is received on 15/12/2015. Thereafter, Ext.P2 application is filed to the 2nd respondent seeking reference under Sec.18 of the Act for adjudication of the claim for enhanced compensation by sub court. But the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting Ext.P2 application holding that the same is hopelessly time barred. According to the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Officer has made apportionment of the compensation on account of conflicting claims and hence the matter was referred to the Sub Court. In such situation, the right to receive compensation under the award would crystallize after the apportionment is made in favour of the claimant. It is only thereafter a reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order apportionment is passed by the Sub Court is the submission. Ext.P3 is the impugned order.