STATE OF KERALA Vs. THANKAMMA MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals preferred by the State impugn the common judgment dtd. 30/5/2017 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos.28422, 31084, 31131, 31138 of 2012. The short issue decided by the learned Single Judge was whether a claimant for compensation under under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act was entitled to base his claim in respect of the land acquired from his possession, on an award passed by the Lok Adalat. The said issue was answered in the affirmative by the learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in these writ appeals.

(2.) When these writ appeals came up for hearing before us, the learned Government Pleader brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v. Yunus and Others [2022 (9) SCC 516], wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that an application under Sec. 28A cannot be maintained on the basis of an award passed by the Lok Adalat under Sec. 20. The reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment can be paraphrased in the following terms:

(3.) While these appeals could have been allowed by merely referring to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we cannot be oblivious to the plight of the respondents herein, who now face a situation where, notwithstanding specific directions issued form this Court to entertain their application under Sec. 28A of the Land Acquisition Act and award a higher compensation based on the Lok Adalat award, have to be satisfied with the meager amounts awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, since the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petitions, (which have attained finality since they were not challenged by the State in any further proceedings) were not complied with by the appellants herein within the time granted by this Court. In matters involving compulsory acquisition of lands from citizens, we feel we would be forsaking a great tradition if we do not come to the rescue of hapless persons simply because the legal position has changed owing to a subsequent declaration of law by the Supreme Court. In our view, since the respondents herein trace their right to receive compensation to the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution, it would be the duty of this Court to try and ensure that, notwithstanding the technical objections to their claim for compensation, they are paid compensation at par with what has already been paid to other persons from whom lands were compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the same project, namely, 'the Karapuzha Irrigation Project'.