SAROJINI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's land was acquired for a public purpose. She did not file any application for enhancement. But some of the landowners whose lands were also acquired for the very same purpose under the very same notification claimed enhancement. Those cases were referred to the Land Acquisition Court, and the Land Acquisition Court awarded enhancement, and a judgment was rendered as per L. A. R. No. 37/1990. Petitioner filed Ext. P2 application under S. 28a of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act") before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming the same benefit. It was specifically averred that properties involved-in L. A. R. No. 37/1990 and that of the petitioner are same category and included in the same notification. That application was filed on 16. 10. 1993. But the same was rejected by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (NH), as per order dated 8. 2. 2007, by a single line order, stating that the application was rejected. No reasons were also stated. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim for enhancement based on a demi-official letter No. 10297/exp. A1/2006/fin. , dated 10. 8. 2006, written by the Principal Secretary, Finance, to the District Collector, Kannur, with copy to all District Collectors in the State. The Principal Secretary, Finance, has laid down five guidelines to be followed by the Land Acquisition Officers, while considering an application filed under S. 28a of the Act application. Copy of that letter is produced by the petitioner, which is marked as Ext. P4. The guidelines state as follows:-

(2.) PETITIONER is challenging the directions contained in the letter. When there are specific provisions in the statute and further the Government had framed Rules under the Sections, the Executive cannot issue circulars or orders, which run counter to the provisions in the statute or Rules. Executive directions issued are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The directions contained in clause 2, 3 and 4 in Ext. P4 are against the statutory provisions. Hence, those directions are illegal, ultra vires and liable to be quashed.

(3.) IN Pulukunnathu Raghava Poduval v. The Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261 = 2004 (2) KLT 553), a learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the directions contained in cls. 2 and 3, and found that those directions are illegal. It was held that it is not mandatory that both the lands should have been included in the same category. It was further held that land acquisition officer can award reasonable proportionate enhancement or reduction upon the land value given to the parties in the judgment relied on through the re-determination, which is directed to be done under S. 28a of the Act. Hence, the rejection of the application relying on Ext. P4 is illegal.