ABDULLAKUNHI Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are the legal heirs of Achibi, Abbas, Ahammed alias Amu, Abdulla, Aleema, Jainabi alias Dainabi, Khadeejabi and Abdul Rahiman have filed this writ petition under Art.226 through their power of attorney holder Sri. C. A. Moideenkunhi complaining that the first respondent Land Acquisition Officer has passed Ext. P9 order rejecting Ext. P8 application submitted by them seeking a reference of the question of determination of the correct market value payable for their acquired properties having total extent of 0.2186 hectares in RS No. 151/1 and 151/2 of Kalanad Village for the purposes of Bakal Resorts Development Corporation Ltd. The reasons stated in Ext. P9 rejection order is that the award was passed on 20/07/1999 and that reference application which was filed only on 05/09/2005 is hopelessly barred by limitation having been filed far beyond the statutory period of limitation. Ext. P4 is copy of the relevant portions of the award dated 20/07/1999. It is stated that the award related to other properties also in which also the petitioners were interested. The compensation amount in respect of those properties were deposited before the Court by the land acquisition officer under S.31(2) and the Court answered those reference cases in favour of the petitioners. Exts. P5 and P6 copies of Court judgments are relied on in this context. It is further stated that there were S.18 references also in respect of those properties and those references were also answered by the reference Court enhancing the compensation. But as regards the subject properties in RS Nos. 151/1, 151/2 and 151/3 the Land Acquisition Officer kept those amounts under revenue deposit stating that nobody had claimed the amounts nor proved title to the property pertaining to the compensation awarded. According to the petitioners it is not correct to say that they had not claimed title to these properties or produced title documents in relation to these properties. It is contended that it was under the very same documents of title that the petitioners claimed interest over the subject properties as well as the other properties mentioned in the award in respect of which references had been made by the officer under S.31(2). This happened due to an apparent mistake committed by the officer who had not conducted the requisite enquiry. The petitioners through their power of attorney holder immediately filed representations before the first respondent, seeking rectification of the mistake and release of the compensation determined for the subject properties to them. It is after the elapse of a long period of five years that the first respondent finally allowed the request by passing Ext. P7 order dated 06/08/05. Pursuant to Ext. P7 the awarded compensation for the subject property was paid to the petitioners who received the same under protest. Ext. P7 is dated 06/08/05 and on receiving the amount under protest the petitioners filed reference application Ext. P8 on 05/09/2005. It is Ext. P8 which was rejected by the first respondent under Ext. P9. Impugning Ext. P9 on various grounds the petitioners pray for the following reliefs:

(2.) A very detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. He justifies Ext. P9. It is pointed out that the date of the award even as per Ext. P8 application is 20/07/1999 and the application for reference Ext. P8 having been filed only on 08/09/2005 is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is contended that there was no bona fide request from the side of the petitioners for release of the compensation determined under the award for the subject properties. That part of the compensation unlike the other portions of the compensation was not deposited before the Court under S.31(2) only because there was no dispute regarding apportionment of that part of the compensation. Land Acquisition Officer became obliged to keep the amounts under treasury deposit so that once the real owners of the property are identified after enquiry the amounts could be released directly to them. There is no provision for condonation of the delay caused in the matter of filing of reference application and therefore Ext. P9 order is perfectly valid one. The contention of the petitioners that the award in respect of the subject properties became final only while passage of Ext. P7 is denied and it is contended that against claim No. 3 of the statutory format of the reference application the petitioner himself has mentioned the date of the award as 20/07/1999. Ext. P7 is not the award, instead it is only an order granting sanction for relieving the lapsed deposit from the treasury.

(3.) I have heard the submissions of Mr. Suresh Kumar Kodoth, counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Latha Thankappan, learned Government Pleader. My attention was drawn by Sri. Suresh Kumar to S.12 of the Land Acquisition Act and also to R.13 of the Land Acquisition (Kerala Rules). Learned counsel submitted that an award under the Land Acquisition Act becomes final only when the same is passed in favour of an identified interested person or persons. In the instant case award No. 19/99 dated 20/07/1999 cannot claim finality in so far as the same relates to the subject properties since the stand of the Land Acquisition Officer regarding the subject properties was that he is not in a position to identify the interested person in whose favour the award could be passed. The respondents cannot for a moment contend that the said award (to the extent the same relates to the subject properties) is an award in favour of the petitioners. If that were so the compensation amount could have been released to the petitioners or could have been deposited before the Court under S.31(2) and a reference initiated under that section as was done in the case of the other properties covered by the said award. R.13 contemplates service of notice on a named awardee or named interested person. Since the awardee or the interested person was identified by the Land Acquisition Officer for the first time only through Ext. P7, it has to be found that there is service of award notice in relation to the subject properties on the petitioner only when Ext. P7 is served. Mr. Suresh Kumar would submit relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of its judgment in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, 1961 All LJ 650 : 1962 (1) SCR 676 : AIR 1961 SC 1500 that the words "the date of the award" in S.18 is to be construed not in a literal or mechanical manner. In the context of the legislative intendment underlying S.18 which is to afford a real and meaningful opportunity to a person to an award not satisfied by the compensation determined by the land acquisition officer to have the same redetermined by a Court, "the date of the award" should be found out.