Kerala High Court disposes of KMRL plea

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has disposed of a petition by Kochi Metro Rail Ltd (KMRL) challenging the Single Judge’s order stating persons whose land was acquired for the Metro project were entitled to get their claims settled under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Disposing of the appeal, the Bench held it was open for the landowners to apply to the District Collector seeking enhancement under Section 64 of the new Act, who, in turn, will act on landowners’ representations. The Collector should refer the matters to the competent authority within six weeks.
 The Division Bench said in the absence of any notification, there could be no reckoning point. So, it may be reckoned from the date the landowners parted with the possession. The court also clarified the competent authority, while calculating interest on the enhanced compensation, if any, will exclude the amounts already paid to the landowners.  The KMRL contended the Single Judge had failed to consider the sale consideration fixed by district-level purchase committee was arrived at by adopting the criteria mentioned in the Resettlement Act.

Therefore, the petitioner could not legally claim any further benefits as per the Act. Besides, rehabilitation and resettlement had been followed in such cases, irrespective of whether the property was taken over by acquisition or by negotiated sale. The KMRL also said the Railway Act and Metro Act were exempted from the provisions of this Act.  The Single Judge had issued the order on the petition filed by Shanavas, of Kochi, and two others, who have surrendered their properties for the Kochi Metro project.  According to the petitioners, the Act was introduced to provide just and fair compensation and make adequate provisions for affected persons, including their rehabilitation and resettlement. The authorities are legally obliged to issue a notice, invite objections, provide ample opportunities to the petitioner, pass award, disburse compensations, solatium and interest.

According to the owners, as no rule was framed, the authorities did not proceed under the provisions of the new Act. Instead, they forced the petitioners and others to deliver the property in advance.
They cooperated with the authorities for taking over the land, subject to their right to get due compensation and other benefits under the law governing the land acquisition. The state government submitted the petitioners were not entitled to turn around and ask for compensation under the Act, 2013. The property was taken after paying sufficient compensation, it stated.