N.Haseena, D/O.Naseema, vs State Of Kerala

The petitioner's land was taken over invoking the provisions under the Disastrous Management Act, 2005. This was for widening a canal. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.

(C) No.6818/2016 dated 28.06.2016, compensation was determined in accordance with the provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act 30/2013).

The petitioner was paid compensation. She is not satisfied with the compensation calculated. She seeks reference under Section 64 of the Act 30/2013. This was not considered. Accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court.

The petitioner executed a consent letter. This would evidence that the petitioner is prepared to accept the compensation determined by the District Level Fair Compensation, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Committee (DLFC). Accordingly, an order has been passed to determine the compensation. Ext.R2(b) is the order. There are two questions arising in the matter. The first question is whether the petitioner by issuing a consent letter and agreeing for acceptance of the compensation fixed by the DLFC, is estopped from challenging the compensation determined by the DLFC. The second question is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a reference under Section 64 of the Act 30/2013.

In regard to the first point, it is to be noted that the petitioner gave a consent letter in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6818/2016. This Court directed the respondent to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act 30/2013, no steps were taken under the Act 30/2013 for acquiring the land. In such circumstances, the only possible way for obtaining right and interest of the petitioner is through a consent letter executed by the petitioner. There is no determination of any compensation in the consent letter. The petitioner had only agreed to surrender the land on a value fixed by the DLFC. That does not mean the petitioner will have to accept whatever the compensation fixed by the DLFC. The very enactment of the Act 30/2013 is to fix the compensation in a fair and transparent manner. No doubt, if any compensation was fixed and the petitioner agreed for acceptance of such compensation, the petitioner cannot wriggle out from her contractual obligations. However, in the consent letter, there was no agreement regarding compensation. While executing the consent letter, the petitioner expressed her view that the DLFC has to fix the compensation in accordance with the Act 30/2013. According to the petitioner, the DLFC had not fixed the compensation in accordance with the provisions under the Act 30/2013. This resulted in demanding enhanced compensation under Section 64 of the Act 30/2013, In such view of the matter, I am of the view that merely because the petitioner had executed the consent letter, it will not stand in the way of claiming a reference under Section 64 of the Act 30/2013. The objection of the respondents, therefore, is overruled. In regard to the second point, admittedly, no proceedings were initiated under the Act 30/2013 to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner. In the absence of any statutory procedure for acquiring the land, the other mode to acquire the land is by the consent of the parties by directing the holder of the land to execute a conveyance deed in favour of the Government. A land cannot be acquired through the proceedings of the District Collector acting under the provisions of the Disastrous Management Act, 2005 nor it can be acquired through the proceedings of the DLFC. The title or interest of the holder of the land can be only divested through the procedure known under law. In view of the fact that the petitioner has no objection in surrendering the interest or right over the property in favour of the Government, it is appropriate, in such circumstances, the petitioner executes a conveyance deed in favour of the Government without prejudice to the claim for reference under Section 64 of the Act 30/2013. Therefore, such sale deed can be treated as an award for the limited purpose of Section 64 of the Act 30/2013. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions:

The petitioner shall execute a conveyance deed in favour of the Government. The District Collector shall take necessary steps for obtaining conveyance deed from the petitioner within a period of two months. On execution of the deed, treating it as an award, the request of the petitioner for re-determination of the compensation shall be taken up and referred to the competent authority within a further period of one month.

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BTR OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.6818 OF 16 DATED 28-06-2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27-06-2017.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

EXHIBITT R2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S CONSENT LETTER DATED 14.12.2016.

EXHIBIT R2(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR'S PROCEEDINGS NO.98788/2015 DATED 14.06.2017.