Petitioner was the owner of an extent of 45.33 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.95/4 in Block No.34 of Aluva West Village. The said property was also included as an item for acquisition under section 4(1) notification published for implementation of Metro Rail Project. Later, through negotiation, the compensation was fixed by the District Level Purchase Committee. The petitioner accepted the same and the land was surrendered after obtaining 80% of the amount payable under the DLPC scheme. As per Ext.P4, the petitioner required the second respondent to disclose the total amount payable in case the amount of compensation is fixed in respect of the acquired property, in terms of the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act and what exactly is the difference between the compensation payable in terms of the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act and the DLPC scheme. Despite the receipt of the same, the second respondent did not respond to it. It is the inaction on the part of the second respondent despite the receipt of Ext.P4 that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition. The prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider and take action on Ext.P4 representation after affording an opportunity of being heard.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It is stated therein that unconditionally the petitioner agreed to hand over the aforesaid extent of land to the Land Acquisition Collector for an amount of Rs.1,25,99,110/-. The agreement executed by the petitioner in form 10A is produced along with the statement as Annexure R2(a). It is also stated therein that prior to Annexure R2(a), the petitioner had given Annexure R2(b) consent letter to the District Collector for acquiring the property for an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- per cent. Later, the petitioner has also executed Annexure R2(c) kacheet on 11.4.2013 in regard to the handing over of the possession of the property to the second respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner accepted 80% of the compensation on 18.10.2013 without any demur. Going by the DLPC scheme, the petitioner is also entitled to any special package, if it is offered by the Government, it is stated. It is only after receiving 80% of the amount that the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation. In such circumstances, the stand of the respondents is that they are not statutorily bound to consider the same.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Though a pointed question was asked to the petitioner as to whether Ext.P4 is a statutory representation the petitioner is not in a position to bring to my attention any provision making it mandatory for the respondents to receive and consider such representation in this undisputed factual situation. In this case, admittedly, the property of the petitioner was included as an item for acquisition under the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, through negotiation permissible under DLPC scheme, the market price of the land was fixed and the petitioner accepted it. That apart, after accepting the price fixed under DLPC scheme, 80% of total amount thus fixed viz., Rs.1,00,79,000/- was received by the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.R2(a) to (c) would reveal that the amount was fixed and the petitioner had accepted the amount and thereafter, he surrendered the possession of the property. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus against the second respondent it is incumbent on the petitioner to show that a duty is cast upon the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4. True that if a duty is cast upon the second respondent to consider the same and despite the demand the second respondent fails to discharge the said duty, it would confer a corresponding right on the petitioner to seek for issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the second respondent to perform the duty. The facts expatiated would reveal that the petitioner cannot contend that his property was taken into possession by the respondents in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and without following a procedure recognized in law. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner that the second respondent is bound to consider Ext.P4 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon. The petitioner who has already surrendered the property in question on receipt of 80% of the amount under the DLPC scheme is certainly entitled to get the amount due under the scheme in respect of the property in question. There is no merit in this writ petition and hence it is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010