Mouvanal Janaki Vs. the District Collector, Kannur - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 26TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 31523 of 2012 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. MOUVANAL JANAKI, AGED 6 YEARS, W/O.KUTTAPPAN, PALAKKODE P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

2. VATTAKANDI P.NIRMALA NAIR, D/O.VATTAKANDI MADHAVI AMMA, BHOOTHAN COLONY, PANAPPUZHA P.O., MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

3. VATTAKKANDI MADHAVI AMMA, W/O.NARAYANAN, PANAPPUZHA POST, TALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT.

4. THEKKADAVAN NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, PAYANNUR POST, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

5. N.P.ABDULLA, S/O.MARIYUMMA, POST ETTIKKULAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

6. T.P.CHANDRAN, POST PILIKKODE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGODE TALUK.

7. KOONICHIRE NARAYANAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, K.N.NIVAS, KUNDAYAMKOVVAL, KANKOL P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANUR DISTRICT.

8. PUTHIYAPURAYIL BALAN, S/O.MANIKKAM, KOORKKARA, POST CHALAKKODE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

9. KALIYADAN BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE CHEMMARATHI, POST KOVVAPPURAM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

10. CHOORAKKATTU BALAN, S/O.RAMAN, PUNCHAKKAD P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.AUGUSTINE WP(C).No. 31523 of 2012 (M) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR ”

002.

2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR ”

301.

3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (L.A GENERAL), THALASSERY ”

101. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT C K SHERIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 31583/2012 & WPC 1584/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31523 of 2012 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 30 4/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 24 4/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 28 5/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 6 4/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: REPRESENTATION DATED 31 3/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 24 4/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 2 5/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 2 5/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 8 7/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10: REPLY DATED 7 10/2009 FILED BY the 8TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 2 6/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P12: REFERENCE APPLICATION DATED 4 5/2009 U/S.28A(3) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT FILED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P13: ORDER DATED 3 1/2010IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.1193/09/D.DIS.ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P14: ORDER DATED 11 1/2010 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.1058/09/D.DIS.ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P15: ORDER DATED 27 2/2010 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.1369/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P16: ORDER DATED 26 12/2009 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.918/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 31523 of 2012 (M) P17: ORDER DATED 4 3/2010 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.831/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P18: ORDER DATED 10 08/09 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.774/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P19: ORDER DATED 28 12/2009 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.1054/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P20: ORDER DATED 2 1/2010 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.1168/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P21: ORDER DATED 27 02/2010 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.1667/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P22: ORDER DATED 7 4/2010 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.2238/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P23: ORDER DATED 18 12/2009 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.1032/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P24: ORDER DATED 13 1/2010 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.REF.D.1403/09/D.DIS. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P25: REPRESENTATION DATED 9 6/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF the ACTION COMMITTEE BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. P26: ORDER DATED 4 9/2010 ISSUED BY the ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT. P27: REPRESENTATION DATED 22 11/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P28: REPRESENTATION DATED 8 11/2011 BEFORE THIE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE LSN K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

--------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 31523, 31583 of 2012 & 1584 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT

The complaint of the petitioners in these three writ petitions relates to orders rejecting applications submitted by them under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short). The petitioners are all owners of land that has been acquired for Naval Academy, Ezhimala. The acquisition was done pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 22.02.1983. The petitioners had not sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, they submitted applications under Section 28A of the Act on various dates during the year 2007. However, the said applications were rejected. Subsequently, they preferred applications under Section 28A(3) of the Act. The applications were all rejected by the orders, which are under challenge in these writ petitions. W.P.(C)No.31523 of 2012 & Conns. :

2. :

2. The orders of rejection impugned in WP(C). No.31523 of 2012 are Exts.P13 to P24. A perusal of the said orders show that they were all passed on various dates in the year 2009 and 2010. In W.P.(C) No.31583 of 2012, the impugned orders are Exts.P15 to Ext.P25. The said orders are also passed on various dates in the years 2009 and 2010. In W.P.(C) No.1584 of 2013, Ext.P15 to P26 are the impugned orders. They are also orders issued in the years 2009 and 2010. In W.P.(C) No.15859 of 2013 Exts.P15 to P26 are the impugned orders, all of which are issued in the year 2009 and 2010.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners had formed an association by name "Ezhimala Action Council" and were pursuing their efforts by submitting representations to the Chief Minister as well as various other authorities. Ext.P27 in W.P.(C) No.1584 of 2013 is one such representation submitted by the W.P.(C)No.31523 of 2012 & Conns. :

3. : petitioners. Similar representations are produced in the other writ petitions also. Thereafter, it is alleged that the Chief Minister had allotted about Rupees Six and half Crores for payment of compensation to the persons , who had lost their lands in the acquisition. It was because the petitioners were pursuing the matter before the various Executive authorities that no writ petition was filed earlier, the counsel contends. Therefore, he seeks the indulgence of this Court to entertain these writ petitions.

4. The learned Government Pleader who represents the respondents points out that the orders under challenge in these writ petitions were all passed on various dates during the years 2009 and 2010. The belated challenge against the said orders is vitiated by delay. The averments in the writ petitions do not offer any convincing explanation for the long lapse of time in challenging the impugned orders. It is therefore W.P.(C)No.31523 of 2012 & Conns. :

4. : contended that there is no justification for entertaining these writ petitions.

5. I have heard the counsel at length. I have also considered the rival contentions, anxiously. It is not in dispute that the acquisition proceedings had commenced as far back as in the year 1983. The proceedings have been completed long back. The petitioners are persons who had not sought for a reference of their cases to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Though they had submitted applications under Section 28A of the Act, the said applications were rejected. Later on, they submitted applications under Section 28A(3) of the Act. It is the said applications that were rejected as per the orders under challenge in these writ petitions. The impugned orders were all passed on various dates during the years 2009 and 2010. Though there are statements in the writ petitions narrating the efforts made by the petitioners W.P.(C)No.31523 of 2012 & Conns. :

5. : seeking redressal of their grievances from the Executive authorities, it is worth noticing that the said facts have not been stated as an explanation for the delay in challenging the impugned orders. On the contrary, a reading of the writ petitions show that the petitioners have not even admitted that there has been any delay in filing these writ petitions. Apart from the above, the fact that the petitioners have been ventilating their grievances before the Executive authorities is not acceptable as a reason for the long delay that has occurred in challenging the impugned orders. Therefore, it is held that there is absolutely no explanation for the enormous delay in filing these writ petitions.

6. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the Honourable Supreme Court has held in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. thr. Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C. & Ors. [2012(5) CIJ 13.W.P.(C)No.31523 of 2012 & Conns. :

6. : that delay or laches are not acceptable grounds for rejecting claims for compensation made by persons who have lost their lands in an acquisition. The said case involved deprivation of land that belonged to some illiterate farmers who were absolutely unaware of their rights and who were not in a position to articulate their claims. Land had been taken possession of on the basis of acquisition proceedings that had actually lapsed. The petitioners had been deprived of their lands by the authorities and their claims for compensation had been rejected on the ground of delay. The Honourable Supreme Court had interfered in the said matter to do justice to the said persons. The dictum in the said case is inapplicable to the facts of this case. The petitioners are persons who are aware of their rights. Though they had not sought for a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, they had submitted their objections W.P.(C)No.31523 of 2012 & Conns. :

7. : under Section 28A and thereafter under Section 28A(3). It is only after the impugned orders were passed that they decided not to pursue the matter. The petitioners are also persons who have been paid compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to entertain these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj