Vijayamma vs District Collector, Civil Station and Others

K. Harilal, J.—1. The petitioner is the title holder in possession of various items of agricultural lands, in Mankara village in Palakkad District. Proceedings were initiated by the respondents, for acquiring her land forming a part of her house and compound, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), for the purpose of widening and straightening of the Palakkad-Ottapalam road, by making Mankara bye-pass road. 4(1) notification under the Act was published in the gazette dated 16.02.2009 and erratum notification was published in the gazette dated 29.4.2009. For the determination of land value, she was represented by a counsel and produced registered document No. 3787/2008, dated 25.08.2008, which had a valuation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, to support her claim of higher value, which she is entitled to get, as her plot abuts to the road.

Consequently, an award was passed granting only Rs. 45,000/- per cent, for the land acquired from the petitioner, and according to the petitioner the amount granted was a meagre amount only, since, the petitioner was not present before the respondents when the award was passed. Her counsel sent Ext. P1 objection, requesting to refer the matter, under Section 18 of the Act and the same was received in the office of the second respondent, on 02.02.2010. Consequently, the cheque dated 04.01.2010 revalidated and issued to the petitioner for the award amount and thus the same was received under protest with a request for reference. While so, to the utter shock and dismay, the petitioner has received a communication stating that her request to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act cannot be accepted and it is stated that in the purchase committee held on 12.08.2009 they had decided to grant Rs. 51,750/- for house ''purayidam'' and Rs. 45,000/- for other land. The petitioner had given ''samatha pathram'' to the effect that she does not have any objection to the value of land or price fixed and that she will not go for any litigation in court alleging inadequacy in the price of land fixed. According to the petitioner, she has not participated in the meeting alleged to be held on 12.08.2009. The land belongs jointly to the petitioner and her son Ferosh. Her son was employed in Hyderabad, he was also not present in the meeting alleged to be held on 12.08.2009. Thus, neither the petitioner nor her son, who are owners of the land, signed any agreement accepting the price of the land and that they have not waived their right under Section 18 of the Act. Thus, reason stated for denying the right of reference, under Section 18 of the Act is arbitrary, illegal and oppressive and liable to be quashed by this Court. This is the grievance projected in this writ petition.

The respondent filed a counter statement, stating that the denial of reference is justifiable, in view of the consent allegedly given by the petitioner, accepting the land value fixed by the respondent. According to the respondent, a meeting was held on 12.08.2009, at the chamber of the District Collector, Palakkad for fixing the land value. An agreement stating that there is no objection against the rate fixed for the land and no one will approach any court of law in this regard, for higher compensation, was entered into between the respondent and the petitioner and similarly situated persons. Everyone signed the agreement also. The minutes of the meeting was produced as Ext. R2(a) and the agreement is produced as Ext. R2 (b). Subsequently, the petitioner has received the amount under Ext. R2(c). Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner is estopped from seeking reference after entering into the agreement with the respondents, accepting the land value, after making an assurance that petitioner and others will not proceed further for claiming higher land value before the Court of law.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

In view of the rival submissions raised at the Bar, the question to be considered is, whether the respondents are justified in rejecting the application, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act, filed by the petitioner herein. Going by the pleadings on record and the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is seen that the reference application under Section 18 of the Act was rejected on the sole ground that the petitioner and others had entered into the agreement, accepting the land value fixed by the purchase committee led by the District Collector and the petitioner and other land owners made assurance that they will not proceed with further application, claiming higher land value. So the only question to be considered is, whether the petitioner has entered into any agreement surrendering her right under Section 18 of the Act. Even though, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, strongly denying the right of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has not produced copy of the agreement in Form 10(a) under Rule 12(5) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Rules, 1963, which is alleged to have been entered into between the petitioner and the District Collector.

Going by Ext. R2(a), the minutes of the meeting, it is seen that neither the petitioner nor her son, who are the owners of the property, were present in the meeting, though, so many other land owners were present in the said meeting. Ext. R2(b), in which the petitioner is also a signatory, is an acknowledgment of the receipt of the amount, only, subsequent to the award.

Put it differently, with respect to the petitioner''s property, the amount was fixed unilaterally, without her consent, though, she had received the same subsequently. Certainly, consent should have been obtained before passing of the award and not after the award. In short, the petitioner or her son should have been present in the meeting dated 12.08.2009 and agreed the land value fixed in that meeting. In the absence of the petitioner or her son, as land owners, in the meeting, Ext. R2(a) decision taken by the Purchase Committee is not binding on the petitioner. Consequently, the reasons stated for denying the right of the petitioner for reference under Section 18 of the Act is arbitrary and illegal.

In the above view of the matter, Ext. P3 will stand set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to make reference, under Section 18 of the Act, to the concerned Civil Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.