1982 (11) TMI 178 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed, withdrawal notification invalidated. Petitioners entitled to compensation with interest.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the invalidation of the withdrawal notification Ext. P-4 and affirming the Petitioners' entitlement to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Power of the State to withdraw from land acquisition under Section 52 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act.2. Validity of the withdrawal notification Ext. P-4.3. Entitlement of the Petitioners to the compensation amount awarded.4. Entitlement to interest on the compensation amount.Detailed Analysis:1. Power of the State to Withdraw from Land Acquisition:The primary issue is whether the State has the authority to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 52 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, which corresponds to Section 48 of the Central Act. The court examined whether possession of the land had been taken under the Act, as Section 52 allows withdrawal only if possession has not been taken. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Lt. Governor, Himachal Pradesh v. Avinash Sharma, which held that once land vests in the Government by operation of law, the acquisition proceedings cannot be canceled.2. Validity of the Withdrawal Notification Ext. P-4:The Petitioners argued that the Government could not exercise powers under Section 52 since possession had been taken and title had vested in it. The Respondents countered that possession was voluntarily surrendered to the Housing Board before the notification under Section 3(1) and that the Government reconsidered the acquisition due to the high compensation amount. The court found that possession was indeed taken by the Land Acquisition Officer and deemed it to be possession under Section 18 of the Act. Consequently, the withdrawal notification Ext. P-4 was held invalid as it violated Section 52 of the Act.3. Entitlement of the Petitioners to the Compensation Amount:The Petitioners were awarded compensation under Ext. P-2, with the 1st Petitioner receiving Rs. 10,97,353 and the 2nd Petitioner Rs. 14,336.84. The Respondents argued that the Petitioners were not entitled to the entire compensation as the land was not solely allotted to them. The court noted that the Petitioners had stated their obligation to share the compensation with other members of the tavazhi. The award was deemed valid and final, and the court declared that all members of the tavazhi were entitled to compensation proportionate to their share of the property.4. Entitlement to Interest on the Compensation Amount:The Petitioners sought interest at 12% from the date of Ext. P-2. The court held that the Petitioners were entitled to interest but reduced the rate to 6% from the date of Ext. P-2 until realization.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the invalidation of the withdrawal notification Ext. P-4 and affirming the Petitioners' entitlement to the compensation awarded with interest at 6% from the date of Ext. P-2 until realization. No order as to costs was made.