M.PADMINI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order made in W.P(C). No.14752 of 2009 dated 27.5.2019, by which the writ court declined to refer the claim for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, instant appeal is filed.

(2.) Short facts leading to appeal are that: Award was passed on 1.10.2000. Request for enhanced compensation was made on 1.11.2009. Before the writ court, the petitioner contended that she was residing in Banglore and no notice of award was received and therefore application for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed on immediately coming to know about the acquisition proceedings. Adverting to the above submissions and pleadings, writ court by observing that the writ petitioner, in her application for enhanced compensation, had not stated about the date on which she came to know about the award and that when the other legal heirs of the owner of the property (since Mr. Narayanan Nair has deceased) have received the compensation, and taking note of the fact that names of all the legal heirs were mentioned in the Award except the one who was deceased, had received compensation, writ court held that the doctrine of constructive knowledge could be attributed to everyone, having common interest; writ petition has been filed after more than eight years and further possession was also taken and that therefore, petitioner, cannot pretend ignorance as to passing of the Award, by order dated 27.5.2019 dismissed the W.P.(C). No.14752 of 2009. Assailing the correctness of the order made in W.P.(C). No.14752 of 2009 dated 27.5.2019, instant writ appeal is filed.

(3.) Inviting attention of this Court to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another reported in [AIR 1961 SC 1500 (V 48 C 284)] and Parsottambhai M. Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in [2005 (4) KLT (SN) 53 Case No.70], learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is mandatory that individual notice on the claimant ought to have been served, and therefore, the observation of the writ court that there would be constructive knowledge, about the award and payment of compensation is erroneous and in the said circumstances, order of the writ court requires interference.