SUGUNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.N.Retheesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner's property in Pallipuram Village, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha Revenue District, was acquired by the 4th respondent as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of the requisition of the 3rd respondent Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. for setting up of their project by name, "Industrial Growth Centre", Cherthala. That land acquisition awards were passed in respect of the properties acquired from the petitioner and the petitioner had objected to the awards. Exts.P-1, P-3 and P-5 are the 3 awards in respect of the petitioner's property. Immediately thereafter the petitioner had submitted objections thereto as per Exts.P2, P-4 and P-6 respectively clearly pointing out that the compensation granted is meagre and that it should be enhanced and that the claim of the petitioner for enhanced compensation should be referred to the LAR Court concerned [Sub Court, Cherthala] for adjudication under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, it appears that since there were disputes regarding the apportionment of the award amounts, the 4th respondent Tahsildar (LA), who is the notified land acquisition officer, had referred the matters in relation to Exts.P-1, P-3 and P-5 only for adjudication of the apportionment dispute between the claimants as envisaged in section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It appears that the 4th respondent, at that point of time, did not also simultaneously refer the matter to the LAR Court in the matter of enhancement compensation as envisaged in Sec. 18. Presumably this would have occurred because, in a case where there is apportionment dispute, ordinarily the right of a claimant to get the award amount and also consequently to seek enhanced compensation to get crystallised only after apportionment dispute is duly settled and adjudicated by the competent fora like LAR Court, as envisaged in Sec. 30 or 31 of the Act as the case may be. Later, the LAR Court had passed awards in the matters in Exts.P1, P-3 and P-5 as per award/ judgment dated 24.8.2005 of the Sub Court, Cherthala, in L.A.R.No. 26/2005 LAR Award dated 6.9.2005 in L.A.R.No. 27/2005 and award dated 29.10.2003 in L.A.R.No. 4/2002, etc. According to the petitioner, he was under the bonafide belief that since he had already filed applications seeking reference under Sec. 18(1) immediately after passing of the impugned Exts.P-1, P-3 and P-5 land acquisition case awards, as per Exts.P2, P-4 and P-6 applications for reference, he was under the bona fide belief and expectation that the 4th respondent land acquisition officer would have referred the matter to the LAR court, not only in respect of the apportionment dispute under Sec. 31(2), but also the reference request for enhanced compensation under Sec. 18 and after the settlement of the apportionment disputes by the LAR court the said court would issue notice to the petitioner for adjudication of his claim for enhanced compensation under Sec. 18(1). No information whatsoever was conveyed by the respondents and only recently, the petitioner could reliably learn from the officials of the 4th respondent as well as from the court below concerned that the 4th respondent had never made a Sec. 18 reference and all what he had done was only a Sec. 31 reference pursuant to Exts.P1, P-3 and P-5. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner has already submitted an application for reference immediately after the passing of Exts.P1, P-3 and P-5 awards as per Exts.P2, P-4 and P-6 applications, there is absolutely no necessity or compulsion in law that the petitioner should have again mandatorily submitted another reference application under Sec. 18 after the passing of the LAR awards in Sec. 31 apportionment dispute.