← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/23302/2013dismissed

Aboosalam Koya v. The Administrator

2015-06-16Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/26TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 23302 of 2013 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-----------------

1. ABOOSALAM KOYA, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.ABOOBAKER KOYA, PONTHINODA HOUSE, AGATHI U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP-682553.

2. MOHAMMEDKOYA ALIYAMMADA S/O.KIDAVU KOYA, KATTAMPALLI, AGATTI UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN 682553.

3. MOHAMMEDKOYA T.A., AGED 65 YEARS THEKKE ALIYAMMADA, AGATHI ISLAND-682 553 U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S):

------------------

1. THE ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI-682555.

2. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATI-682555.

3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, AGATTI-682553.

4. LAKSHADWEEP PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.

R-R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23302 of 2013 (K) ----------------------------

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.34/26/2009-LR DATED 27.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING 80% OF THE COMPENSATION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6.9.11 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6.9.11 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8.8.11 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER ACKNOWLEDGING 80% OF THE COMPENSATION.

EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.10.11 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ACKNOWLEDGING 80% OF THE COMPENSATION.

EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 1.5.2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 8.8.12 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED DEC.2012 ACKNOWLEDGING 20% OF THE COMPENSATION BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED NOV.2012 ACKNOWLEDGING 20% OF THE COMPENSATION BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P13: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 21.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION NEW SCHOOL BUILDING AT KADAMAT.

EXHIBIT-P14: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.4.2012 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN C.A.NO.4005/12.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE.

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

--------------------- W.P (C) No.23302 of 2013 --------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners very much participated in the Award enquiry as revealed from Ext.P7 proceedings dated 1.5.2012. Ext.P8 Award was passed on 8.8.2012 and the petitioners had the liberty to file an application for reference within six weeks therefrom. A period of six weeks from the date of the Award is the upper limit when the petitioners have participated in the Award enqiry. This is discernible from Section 18(2)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2.

The petitioners have preferred a representation after the Award only on 13.3.2013. This is evident from Ext.P12 reply given to the query made under the Right to Information Act. More than 6 weeks had elapsed on 13.3.2013 after Ext.P8 Award dated 8.8.2012 as revealed from the records.

3. The mere receipt of compensation under protest will not suffice to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The issue is covered by Kamalakshy v. District Collector [1998 (2) KLT 898]. No application in time has been made to warrant a

WP(C) No.23302 of 2013 reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners are however free to invoke Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act if the same is permissible. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

nj.