JOSEPH Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions involved in this Writ Petition are: (1) Is it incumbent upon the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act to refer back the papers to the Land Acquisition Authority if the claimant dies after reference (2) Whether the legal representatives of the claimant are entitled to come on record as such in substitution of the deceased claimant in the Land Acquisition Reference proceedings and (3) What should be the procedure if the Land Acquisition Authority does not return the papers after complying with the directors issued by the Reference Court within a reasonable time

(2.) An extent of 4.10 Ares of land belonging to one Raphel was acquired along with other lands. On 20-6-1992, an award was passed. Since there was dispute regarding disbursement of the award amount, reference was made under Section 31(8) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was numbered as L.A.R. No. 221 of 1994, on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Raphel, who was 'B' claimant, died on 5-10-1994. The legal representatives of Raphel, one of whom is the petitioner in this Writ Petition, filed an application to get themselves impleaded in the land acquisition proceedings in L.A.R. No. 221 of 1994. Instead of impleading them, the Reference Court issued a direction to the land Acquisition Officer to get a report regarding identity of the legal representatives of Raphel. That case was being adjourned from 1994 to 1998 awaiting the report of the Land Acquisition Officer. Till 2003 nothing tangible transpired. The petitioner herein filed O.P. No. 7252 of 2003, which was disposed of as per judgment dated 14-03-2003, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to resubmit the land acquisition file to the Reference Court. It was held that if the Land Acquisition Officer fails to do so, the petitioner would be free to supply all the relevant documents before Court and the court below should reconstruct the file on the basis of such records. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer did not comply with the directions and on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner the files were reconstructed and L.A.A. No. 221 of 1994 was disposed of as per Ext.P2 decree, holding that the legal representatives of Raphel would be entitled to receive the amount of compensation.

(3.) Deceased Raphel had filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhanced compensation. Reference was made and the case was numbered as L.A.A. No. 299 of 1994. After reference, Raphel died. His legal representatives were not impleaded as no steps were taken either by the Land Acquisition Officer or by the legal representatives of deceased Raphel in that regard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued to Raphel in L.A.A. No. 299 of 1994 nor did he appear in the case. The counsel submits that the legal representatives of Raphel were not bound to do anything in the Land Acquisition Reference. The writ Petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents, The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) and the District Collector, to make a reference to the appropriate court or to take steps to reconstruct the records of the Reference Court for disposal of the case.