1 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 2089 OF 2024 LAR NO.298 OF 2023 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/S: SUNILA JAMES, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O LATE JAMES, RESIDING AT NITHYA VIHAR, THAMARAVILA, AMARAVILA P.O., CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN N. CHANDRA DAS, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. NESAMANI, RESIDING AT NITHYA VIHAR, THAMARAVILA, AMARAVILA P.O., CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695122 BY ADVS.SAIJO HASSAN/BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RAFEEK. V.K./ABRAHAM J. KANIYAMPADY SANGEETH MOHAN/V.P.REJITHA MEERA J. MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043 2 THE REGISTRAR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, MBA BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695016 OTHER PRESENT: ADV.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SC, SRI.K.R GANESH, GP SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 5.03.2025, THE COURT ON 14.3.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 JUDGMENT (Dated this the 14th day of March 2025) This petition challenges the order dated 17.07.2024 passed by the Court of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority, Thiruvananthapuram in LAR No. 298 of 2023 and I.A. No 2/2024. 2. The Petitioner, a mentally ill person, is represented by her court-appointed guardian, N. Chandradas, appointed by the 1st Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, vide order dated 31.05.2006 in O.P. (M.H.A) No. 155 of 2005. The Petitioner is the Claimant in LAR No. 298 of 2023, a land acquisition reference, under Section 77(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the Act”, for short), pending before the Land Acquisition Court. Petitioner's guardian, N. Chandradas, obtained sanction, vide order dated 3 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 04.10.2021 in IA No.1/21 of O.P. (M.H.A) No. 155 of 2005, from the 1st Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, to execute documents and agreements on her behalf. 3. The 1st Respondent herein, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), subsequently made a reference to the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, vide Reference No. A1- 834/2023 dated 08.06.2023 and pursuant to this reference, a compensation amount of Rs. 18,92,89,001/- was deposited in the Civil Court. As per section 78 of the Act of 2013, the compensation for individuals incompetent to alienate land, must be reinvested in their name itself. Consequently, the Petitioner filed I.A. No. 2/2024 in LAR No. 298/2023 on 27.02.2024, seeking permission to utilize the compensation for purchasing two properties in her name. 4. However, the Court dismissed I.A .No. 2/2024, by Ext P15 common order, dated 17.07.2024 in L.A.R. No. 298/23, 4 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 finding that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the reinvestment of the compensation under Section 78 of the Act. The Court further held that the District Court, having appointed the guardian, is competent to decide on the utilization of the funds. The Petitioner contends that the dismissal of I.A. No. 2/2024 in Exhibit P15 is illegal to the extent it dismissed I.A. No 2/2024 and is contrary to Section 78 of the Act, and therefore it is liable to be set aside. Challenging Ext P15 order, present O.P.(C) stands filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the Authority has improperly refused to exercise its statutory jurisdiction over the reinvestment of compensation, as per the Act. Furthermore, the counsel contended that the authority's decision to defer to the District Court, a body whose jurisdiction under the now-repealed Mental Health Act, 1987 which no longer exists, creates a legal vacuum. This abdication of 5 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 responsibility directly undermines the protective intent of Section 78, which is designed to safeguard the interests of individuals incapable of alienating their land and thus, renders the provision ineffective. Therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order. 6. The counsel for the respondent contends that the Land Acquisition Court lacked jurisdiction to direct the disbursement of funds belonging to a mentally ill person since this fall under the purview of the court that appointed the guardian. He further contends that the guardian is powerless to purchase the property without obtaining the leave of the District Court and thus prays for dismissal of this original petition. 7. On going through the impugned order, it is seen that the District Court found Section 78(1) of the Act to have no application to the case of the petitioner holding that it applies only to a mentally disabled person who is powerless to alienate 6 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 the property, whereas in the present case, since a guardian is appointed, the petitioner through the guardian, is thus competent to alienate the property. This reasoning by the District Court cannot hold good in law because the above said interpretation of the land acquisition court, if accepted, would make sec 78(1) otiose. 8. It is a fact that though, mentally infirm persons are incompetent to alienate land due to their legal disability and they can approach the court only through a legal guardian, if the abovesaid interpretation is admitted, it is assumed that such person approaches the court directly without a legal guardian on his behalf, which was never intended by the legislature. It is apposite to mention that the land acquisition court failed to consider that even after the appointment of a guardian by the court, a mentally infirm person continues to be legally incapable, till such incapacity is removed in their individual 7 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 capacity. 9. The counsel for the petitioner relied on Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs v. Banaras Hindu University, (2022 KHC 6635 (SC)) and Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar [(2015 (11) SCC 628)], to contend that the money deposited in respect of lands belonging to persons incompetent to alienate is to be reinvested and has to be done by the Land Acquisition Court. No other person, court or Tribunal can exercise the said duty, which is statutorily vested with the Land Acquisition Court. Thus, the refusal of the Land Acquisition Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 78 of the Act amounts to abdication of its statutory responsibility as held in Natural Gas Regulatory Board v. Indraprastha Gas Limited, reported in (2015 (9) SCC 209). 10. It is settled position of law that where a right or a 8 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the Statute must be availed of. To put it otherwise, if a statute provides for doing a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. This was founded on Dharmin Bai Kashyap v. Babli Sahu and Others, (2023 KHC 6775 SC)]. 11. Moreover, as per Section 64 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Court has the power to adjudicate upon all disputes and matters relating to land acquisition, which includes the power and duty to ensure proper reinvestment of compensation as per Section 78 of the Act. For this, the counsel relied on Union of India v. Shiv Raj and Ors. ((2014) 6 SCC 564], wherein the Apex court has held that when a statute confers powers on an authority, it is the duty of that authority to exercise such powers when the occasion arises. 9 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 12. Therefore, it is proper to hold that Ext P15 itself violates the principle of purposive interpretation of Section 78 of the Act which was enacted to protect the interests of persons incompetent to alienate land. By refusing to oversee the reinvestment, the Land Acquisition Court frustrated the very purpose of this provision and merely because a guardian is appointed under Section 77, the application under section 78 cannot be restricted in the said case. The intention of the legislature by enacting this provision is to make a deposit under Section 78, which would benefit the person incompetent in the eyes of law. This aspect was left unconsidered by the District Court in the right perspective. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that interference is warranted with Ext P15 and is set aside. In the result, the present O.P.(C) stands allowed. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI,JUDGE dl/ 10 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2089/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.05.2006 IN O.P. (M.H.A) NO. 155 OF 2005 OF THE HONOURABLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH ITS TYPED LEGIBLE COPY. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 1/21 DATED 04.10.2021 IN O.P. (M.H.A) NO. 155 OF 2005 GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE 2ND PETITIONER TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE NO. A1-834/2023 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2023 TO THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 2/2024 IN LAR NO. 298/2023 DATED 27.02.2024 BEFORE THE LAND ACQUISITION COURT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 14.03.2024 IN LAR NO. 298/2023. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.03.2024 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY MOHAN RAJ AND JALAJA MOHAN ON 22.01.2024 AGREEING TO SELL 24.28 ARES (60 CENTS) WITH A COMMERCIAL BUILDING (CONVENTION CENTER) IN RE-SURVEY NOS. 327/8-2 AND 327/8-1 OF MARANLLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY RAVINDRAN, SUSEELAN, SASIDHARAN, RAJENDRAN AND PRABHA DATED 27.01.2024 AGREEING TO SELL AN EXTENT OF 9.90 ARES (24.47 CENTS) ALONG WITH A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN RE-SURVEY NO. 20 OF CHENKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF VALUATION REPORT DATED 22.01.2024 OF 24.28 ARES (60 CENTS) OF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P7 AGREEMENT. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF VALUATION REPORT DATED 25.01.2024 OF 11 OPC 2089/24 2025:KER:27493 9.90 ARES (24.47 CENTS) OF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P8 AGREEMENT. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL OPINION REPORT DATED 20.01.2024 OF THE ABOVESAID 24.28 ARES OF PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P7 AGREEMENT. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL OPINION REPORT DATED 20.01.2024 OF 9.90 ARES COVERED BY EXHIBIT P8 AGREEMENT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2024 EXECUTED BY MOHAN RAJ AND JALAJA MOHAN IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2024 EXECUTED BY RAVINDRAN, SUSEELAN, SASIDHARAN, RAJENDRAN AND PRABHA IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17.07.2024 IN LAR NO. 298/23 AND ORDER IN IA NO. 2/2024 IN LAR NO. 298/2023.