AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.T. Ravikumar, J.—The petitioners who are siblings are holding properties abutting MC Road at Muvattupuzha. The first petitioner is a Doctor and he is running a hospital by name Vallakkalil Hospital in Muvattupuzha town. The second petitioner is conducting a shopping complex adjoining the said hospital building. In the matter of widening of MC Road a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 7.11.2013. Apprehending acquisition of an extent of 6.30 cents from the properties belonging to the petitioners and the consequential inconveniences likely to occur in the matter of functioning of the hospital and the shopping complex the petitioners submitted Ext. P1 representation before the third respondent and Ext. P2 representation before the 4th respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the submission of Exts. P1 and P2 representations they were not taken into consideration and the respondents are going on with the acquisition proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioners that without passing appropriate orders on Exts. P1 and P2 representations the respondents are not justified in proceeding with the acquisition proceedings. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers:-
To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders to direct respondents 1 to 3 to reconsider the proposed alignment for widening MC road at Muvattupuzha town with respect of the property of the petitioners, comprised in Sy. No. 365/11, 12 and 13 in Marady Village and find out the possibility of utilizing the government land situated on the northern side of MC road, in front of the above said property of the petitioners.
To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing 3rd and 4th respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts. P1 and P2 representations by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.
To direct respondents 1 to 3 not to commence widening of MC road in the property of the petitioners, until a decision is taken on Ext. P1 and P2 representations.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader.
Admittedly, for the purpose of widening of MC road near Muvattupuzha Town, notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 7.11.2013. The said Act stands repealed by virtue of provisions u/s 114(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ''Act 30 of 2013'') which came into force with effect from 1.1.2014. Going by Section 24 of the Act 30 of 2013 notwithstanding anything contained in the said act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where no award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed such proceedings should continue under the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. When an award u/s 11 was passed then such proceedings should continue under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as if the said Act has not been repealed. Thus, it is obvious that when the proceedings are initiated under the repealed act 1894 and an award u/s 11 was not passed such proceedings could be continued in accordance with the provisions under the Act 30 of 2013. Under the repealed Act an opportunity to raise objections in respect of any acquisition proceedings was available u/s 5A of that Act. Under Act 30 of 2013 there is a corresponding provision for hearing the objections u/s 15. Going by Section 15 of the said Act any person interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification raise his/her objection. In view of the provisions under Sections 15 and 24 of the Act 30 of 2013 and taking into account the fact that the last date of publication of the notification was 12.12.2013 I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as follows:-
It will be open to the petitioners to raise their objections, if any, in accordance with law before the competent authority in accordance with Section 11(1) of the Act within the time stipulated thereunder. Since the last publication was made only on 12.12.2013 the time for filing objections would run only from that date. In case the petitioners submit their objections within the time stipulated for that purpose it shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions u/s 15 of the Act.