STATE OF KERALA Vs. MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the State authorities challenging the judgment dtd. 1/8/2016 in W. P. (C) No. 17971 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge has directed the 2nd appellant to refer the issue relating to the adequacy of compensation granted to the petitioners to the civil court for adjudication under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act').

(2.) Short facts that arise from the record are as under:- Several parcels of land of the original petitioners were acquired for construction of a new railway line from Angamaly to Azhutha. Since there were rival claimants, a reference was made under Sec. 30 of the Act, which was numbered as LAR No. 35 of 2012. By judgment dtd. 12/2/2015 of the additional Sub Judge, North Paravur, the reference was decided in favour of the original petitioners and thus became final. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application dtd. 9/3/2015 requesting the District Collector to refer the matter under Sec. 18 of the Act since the petitioners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The District Collector refused to consider the application and hence, the petitioners filed the captioned writ petition seeking a direction to refer Ext. P2 application to the Sub Court invoking Sec. 18 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, after considering the material on record, allowed the writ petition directing the present appellants to refer the matter under Sec. 18 of the Act. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State authorities would submit that the award was declared by the authority on 29/10/2010 whereas application for reference under Sec. 18 was made only on 9/3/2015. He would submit that the petitioners were aware of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, they were supposed to make an application under Sec. 18 for reference to the competent court which has not been done and therefore, the District Collector has rightly rejected the application. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Government Pleader has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (1) KLT 22 (SC)] and Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Another [2015 (7) SCC 601]. He therefore would submit that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.