The Greater Cochin Development Authority vs A.S. Iqbal and Others

Balanarayana Marar, J.—First Respondent''s father had some properties in survey Nos. 124 and 125 of Ernakulam Village. Those properties along with adjacent properties were notified for acquisition for the town planning scheme prepared by the Ernakulam Municipal Council. Notification was issued u/s 9(3) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. Two land acquisition cases were registered as 1/72 and 2/72 in respect of portions of land in R.S. 125/1 and 124 respectively. In pursuance to the notice, statements were filed by first Respondent''s father claiming a sum of Rs. 8000 per cent as compensation. It appears that first Respondent''s father agreed to sell the properties in survey Nos. 124 and 125 for Rs. 2000, per cent. He had offered to sell about 3 1/5 acres at this rate provided the compensation was paid within three months. That request of first Respondent''s father was considered by the Cochin Town Planning Trust and Petitioner was requested to be present in the Trust Office for a discussion. Thereafter a statement was presented to the Land Acquisition Special Tahsildar of Cochin Town Planning Trust by first Respondent''s father agreeing to surrender the land for the purpose of Government on paying value at the rate of Rs. 1,900 per cent inclusive, of the value of improvements. Awards were passed on 25th January 1973 and 1st February 1973 and the entire compensation amount was received by first Respondent''s father. First Respondent''s father died on 4th October 1973. In respect of a portion of the land in survey 124/2CD the acquisition proceedings were not completed before the death of first Respondent''s father. That was continued as land acquisition case 52/77 against first Respondent and the other legal representatives. The award notice was received by first Respondent on 23rd November 1982. The compensation amount was accepted by him under protest and he chimed interest from 1973 onwards together with enhanced solatium under the amended Land Acquisition Act. Those amounts were also paid since then. A petition was presented by the first Respondent who is the power of attorney holder of the other legal representatives, of his father on 12th May 1987 to the Special Tahsildar, Greater Cochin Development Authority objecting to the amount of compensation awarded in land acquisition cases 1/72 and 2/72 as well as in land acquisition case 52/77. The statement given by his father on 12th December 1972 was not voluntary according to him and was the result of coercion and undue influence exercised on him by the officers by exploiting his dire financial necessity. As per Ext. P-31 the Special Tahsildar informed first Respondent that his application cannot be considered in view of the statement executed by his father agreeing that no reference application would be filed for enhanced compensation. Challenging that order first Respondent filed O.P. 8550/87 before this Court seeking (a) a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext. P-31 and (b) a writ of mandamus or other writ, direction or order requiring the Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Greater Cochin Development Authority to refer the claims for enhanced valuation in L.A.C. 1/72, 2/72 with Ext. P-13 statement and L.A.C. 52/77 to Sub Count, Ernakulam for determining whether Ext. P-13 statement (it should be Ext. P-14) given by A.B. Saithumohammed is a voluntary statement and whether he or his legal heirs are entitled to enhanced compensation for the land involved in these acquisition cases. As per judgment dated, 19th July 1990 a Single Judge of this Court set aside Ext. P-31 and directed the land Acquisition Officer to refer the application u/s 20 to the court for the determination of the question regarding enhancement of compensation. It was made clear that the parties to the land acquisition case are free to agitate the question untrammelled by anything stated in Ext. P-31 order. This appeal is filed by the Greater Cochin Development Authority against that decision.

The main question that we are called upon to consider in this case is whether Ext. P-30 application presented by first Respondent for reference u/s 20(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act is barred since the awards were passed in pursuance to the statement presented by first Respondent''s father whereby he had agreed to accept land-value at the fate of Rs. 1,900 per cent inclusive of the value of improvements. It is urged by Sri. Abdul Gafoor, learned Counsel for Appellant that the compensation amount was received by first Respondent''s father otherwise than under protest and as such was not entitled to make an application u/s 20 of the Act by virtue of the prohibition contained in the second proviso to Section 33(2) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act). It is his contention that first Respondent''s father had agreed to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,900 per cent by presenting Ext. P-14 statement. Even before that he had informed the Town Planning Trust as per Ext. P-11 that he was prepared to sell his entire properties lying north of Dunlop Tyre Company and comprised in survey Nos. 124 and 125 at the fate of Rs. 2,000 per cent. He had agreed to sell an area of 3 1/2 acres provided the amount was paid within a period of three months. That letter is seen to have been seat on 17th November 1982 though the letter does not bear a date. Realising this mistake first Respondent''s father had sent a letter on the next day informing the trust about the omission to mention the date in Ext. P-11. It was thereafter that the trust invited first Respondent''s father for a discussion on 8th December 1972 at the trust office to discuss his offer contained in the letter. It would appear that first Respondent''s father had agreed to surrender the land on receiving compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,900 per cent inclusive of the value of improvements during the discussions which took place on 8th December 1972 and a few days thereafter Ext. P-14 statement was presented by him. The awards were also passed without much delay on 25th January 1973 and 1st February 1973. Notice of the award u/s 12(2) was issued on the date of the award itself. In pursuance to the awards the awardee had received the entire compensation. He died on 4th October 1973 several months after receipt of the amount. The acquisition proceedings in respect of a portion of the land was completed only in 1982. The compensation was received by the legal representatives. It would appear that first Respondent had claimed the amount as the power of attorney holder of the other legal heirs. In the meantime some of the adjacent land holders had objected to the compensation awarded and on their request reference had been made to Sub Court, Ernakulam. Enhanced compensation was awarded by that court as per order dated, 22nd March 1986 in a batch of land acquisition references. A copy of the common judgment is Ext. P-29. The request for a reference to the Land Acquisition Court was made by the first Respondent more than a year after the decision rendered in the batch of the land acquisition references as per Ext. P-29. Learned Counsel for Appellant would therefore contend that the Special Tahsildar was under no obligation to refer the dispute to the Land Acquisition Court. According to him first Respondent''s father had accepted the award and had not objected to the amount of compensation and claim for enhanced compensation is also barred by virtue of the second proviso to Section 33(2) of the Act, the amount of compensation having been received otherwise than under protest. It is also pointed out that there has been inordinate delay in making the request for a reference. The learned Single Judge was in error, according to the Counsel in setting aside Ext. P-31 and directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the application u/s 20 of the Act.

Going by the letter of the law, learned Counsel for the Appellant is right in his submissions. It is mandatory on the part of the Collector to refer the dispute for the determination of the court if any person interested who has not accepted the award, has by written application objected to the amount of compensation, the measurement of the land, the person to whom the compensation is payble or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Such an application has to be filed within six weeks from the date of the Collector''s award in case the person making the application was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made the award. In other cases, the application has to be presented within six weeks of the receipt of the notice of the award from the Collector or within six months from the date of the Collector''s award, whichever period expires first. First Respondent''s father Saithumohammed was present before the Collector at the time when the award was made. Notice was issued to him in both the land acquisition cases on the date on which the award was made, viz., 25th January 1973 and 1st February 1973 respectively. The compensation amount was accepted by Saithumohammed otherwise than under protest and no objection was raised by him regarding the amount of compensation till his death. It is open to the collector to rely on the second proviso to Section 33(2) of the State Act (Section 31 of the Central Act) which provides that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application u/s 20. Here is therefore a case where the father of the first Respondent was present at the time when the award was made and did not object to the amount, of compensation within the period prescribed in Section 20 of the Act. Since the compensation was assessed on the basis of the statement presented by Saithumohammed himself and since he wanted determination of the amount without any delay whatsoever on the basis of that statement he had received the amount otherwise than under protest. It would therefore appear that Saithumohammed during his lifetime had not raised any objection nor was any request made to make a reference u/s 20 of the Act. Years thereafter first Respondent who is one of the heirs of Saithumohammed wanted a reference to be made u/s 20 on his own behalf and on behalf of the other heirs who had executed a power of attorney in his favour. In, the meantime adjacent land owners had been awarded enhanced compensation by Sub Court, Ernakulam to which Court the Collector had made references u/s 20 of the Act on the applications presented by those landholders. The request for a reference is seen to have been made on the ground that the statement Ext. P-14 was vitiated by undue influence and coercion and because of the dire penury he was subjected to on account of the freezing of the land by Ext. P-3 notification and the indifference and inaction of the land acquisition authorities for a period of 8 years from 1964. Therein request was also made for making a reference in respect of the land acquisition case 52/77 registered after death of Saithumohammed and wherein an award was passed in favour of his heirs. By Ext. P-26 first Respondent had informed the Secretary of Appellant authority that he had received the amount under protest. He further waited the authority to determine and pay the interest for the amount from 1973 onwards together with enhanced compensation under the amended Land Acquisition Act. The grievance of first Respondent was that the Special Tahsidar, Land Acquisition had refused to make a reference even though the amount was received by him under protest. The reason for the refusal appears to be that the land in question inclusive of the land involved in L.A.C. 52/77 was acquired from Saithumohammed as per the agreement executed by him and he had agreed that he would not request for a reference u/s 20 of the Act. On a consideration of the materials on record it would appear that the request for making a reference has not been made by the awardee within the prescribed period and no objection was raised regarding the amount of compensation, within that period.

But the important question that requires an answer is whether the Land Acquisition Officer is competent to investigate on the validity or otherwise of the agreement when the agreement is disputed by the party. The compensation was assessed in pursuance to Ext. P-14 statement presented by Saithumohammed wherein he had undertaken to surrender the land on receiving compensation at a particular rate. The award was made on that basis. The legal representatives of Saithumohammed now question the validity of that statement and according to them Saithumohammed was compelled to, execute such a statement by the authorities and he was also in straightened circumstance during the relevant period. The statement according to them was not executed voluntarily and reliance is also placed on the claim made by him as per Exts. P-6 and P-7 wherein land value was claimed at the rate of Rs. 8000 per cent. The contention of the first Respondent was that his father would not have agreed to surrender the land for a considerably low sum unless he has been compelled to do so. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the court alone is competent to investigate on the validity or otherwise of Ext. P-14 statement and the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to make a reference u/s 20 of the Act.

This Court had occasion to consider the question whether an application for reference u/s 20(2) is barred when the award was made pursuant to an agreement between the parties in the decision in Radhakrishnan v. District Collector 1980 KLT 208 It was held:

It may be open to the parties on valid grounds to, question the very existence of the agreement or the validity thereof. This can be investigated only in a court of law. Apart from the fact that it is not open to the parties to go behind the agreement as regards the stipulations therein, the right of a party to question the very existence of the agreement, or the validity thereof is not barred by any provision of the Act. Consequently it is not open to the Collector to refuse to make a reference solely by reason of a prior agreement. Such, power cannot be read into either Section 16 or Section 20.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has attempted to draw a distinction between an agreement entered into before the issuance of a notice u/s 3(1) and an agreement entered into at the time of making the award. In Radhakrishnan''s case 1980 KLT 208 (supra) the notification-under Section 3(1) was issued since the date of the agreement. In the present case Ext. P-14 was executed after the issue of that notification and in the course of the enquiry by the Land Acquisition Officer. That does not make any difference since the validity or otherwise of the agreement can be investigated only in a court of law and the Land Acquisition Officer is not competent to investigate the same. As held by this Court in Radhakrishan''s case 1980 KLT 208 (supra) it is not open to the Collector to refuse to make a reference solely by reason of a prior agreement and such power cannot be read into Section 20 of the Act.

In this connection it is apposite to refer to the following observations made by this Court in Annamma Chacko v. Land Acquisition Officer 1981 KLT 36.

The Act clothes the authorities with powers which an ordinary citizen does not have. The properties belonging to the citizens are compulsorily acquired by resort to provisions of the Act. Citizens do not have any remedy against such deprivation except on limited grounds. Therefore those who are deprived of property should be compensated adequately. They should be permitted to make liberal use of the relevant provisions of the Act to secure reasonable compensation. A rigid approach to the provisions of the Act is neither helpful nor desirable. Adequate and reasonable compensation, to which such persons are entitled, should not be denied to them on hyper technical pleas.

The question whether the Collector can decide as to whether a reference should be made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and whether he can reject a reference came up for consideration before the Gujarat High Court in the decision in Patel Vashram Copalbhai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, . That was a case where the request for reference was rejected by the Collector on the ground that the Petitioner has accepted the award without protest. It was stated before the High Court that an oral objection was made by the Petitioner before accepting the award. The question arose as to whether there was an objection or not and whether that question has to be decided by the court on a reference u/s 18. After referring to a prior decision of the same High Court reported in Rabari Mahadev Amra Vs. Prant Officer, Radhanpur, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that it is the duty w of the District Court to which the reference will be made u/s 18 to decide as to whether the award was accepted without protest or not. It was further held that if the court comes to the conclusion that the award was accepted without any protest, it may throw out the reference u/s 18. It was further observed that it is not for the Collector to decide and reject the reference u/s 18, but he has to refer the same leaving the question open to be decided by the District Court to which reference will be made u/s 18. In view of this finding the matter was directed to be referred to the District Court for a decision, on the question as to whether the acceptance of the award was under protest or not. It was further observed that after deciding that question, it is for the District Court to dismiss Or entertain such a reference u/s 18.

The statement Ext. PT-14 was presented by Saithumohammed on 12th December 1972. The statement was given in pursuance to the decision arrived at in the course of discussions held on 8th December 1972. Saithumohammed himself wanted an early decision in the matter, and had agreed to surrender the property in case he is paid land value at the rate of Rs. 1,900 per cent. He had not raised any objection till his death. He died on 4th October 1973. It might not have been possible for Saithumohammed to go behind the statement regarding the stipulations made therein. Still the question whether such a statement was presented by him before the authorities under coercion as alleged in the application of the first Respondent has to be looked into. The right of a party to question the existence or the legality or validity of an agreement is not in any way barred under any of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. That question can be investigated only by the civil court and not by the District Collector. It is therefore not open to the Collector to refuse to make the reference on the ground that a statement had been given by the landholder. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed in 1980 KLT 208 and the Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Patel Vashram Copalbhai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, and hold that it is not for the Collector to decide and reject the reference u/s 18 in the circumstances of the case and he has to refer the same to the civil court leaving the question to be decided by that court to which a reference is made. We do not wish to express any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the first Respondent challenging the award. The learned Single Judge was therefore right in setting aside Ext. P-31 and directing the land acquisition officer to refer the application u/s 20 to the court for determination of the question regarding enhancement of compensation.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.