K.S.Rajan (Dead) Through L.Rs. vs The State Of Kerala

K.S. Rajan (D) through LRs ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Kerala & Anr. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) These appeals are filed against the final

judgment and order dated 05.03.2003 passed by

the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in LAA

No.905 of 1995 whereby the Division Bench of the

High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the

Signature Not Verified original appellant herein. Against the said order, Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.08.10 17:14:16 IST Reason: 1 the appellant filed review petition being R.P. No.205

of 2004 which was also dismissed.

2) In order to appreciate the short controversy

involved in these appeals, it is necessary to set out

few relevant facts hereinbelow.

3) During the pendency of the appeals in this

Court, the appellant died and his legal

representatives were brought on record.

4) The original appellant is the owner of the land

measuring around 4.30 acres situated in the

District of Kottyam (Kerala). The State of Kerala

issued a notification dated 25.11.1980 under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

short called "the Act“) and acquired total land

measuring around 30 acres in Kottayam

Municipality for implementation of "multipurpose

development scheme at Kodimatha" on the acquired

land. It was followed by declaration under Section

2 6 of the Act. The appellant's land (4.30 acres) was

also acquired in these acquisition proceedings by

notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.

5) The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) then held

an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 11 of

the Act, for payment of compensation to the

landowners and by his award dated 06.08.1984

determined the compensation as under:

For Dry land : Rs.4631/­ per cent For Chira land : Rs.1725/­ per cent For Wet land : Rs.203/­ per cent

6) The appellants felt aggrieved by the

determination made by the LAO and sought

reference to the Civil Court. By award dated

28.02.1990, the Reference Court re­determined the

compensation as under:

For Dry land : Rs.7500/­ per cent For Chira land : Rs.2000/­ per cent For Wet land : Rs.2000/­ per cent

3 7) Felt aggrieved by the award of the Reference

Court, the State filed an appeal in the High Court of

Kerala. The High Court, by order dated 23.06.1992

allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the

Reference Court for fresh determination. After the

remand, the Reference Court by award 07.01.1995

re­determined the compensation as under :

For Dry land : Rs.5000/­ per cent For Chira land : Rs.2500/­ per cent For Wet land : Rs.450/­ per cent

8) By the aforesaid award passed by the

Reference Court, the appellant felt aggrieved and

filed appeal in the High Court. By impugned order,

the High Court made partial modification in the

compensation and determined the compensation as

under:

For Dry land : Rs.5000/­ per cent For Chira land : Rs.2500/­ per cent For Wet land : Rs.500/­ per cent

4 9) The appellant felt aggrieved by the order

passed by the High Court and filed review petition

in the High Court. By order dated 02.09.2003, the

High Court disposed of the review petition and made

partial modification in the compensation as under:

For Dry land : Rs.8000/­ per cent For Chira land : No increase For Wet land : No increase

10) The original appellant (landowner) felt

aggrieved by the order of the High Court passed in

main appeal as well as in the review petition, filed

the present appeals by way of special leave in this

Court.

11) So far as the appellants are concerned, they

are mainly concerned with the determination made

by the Courts below for the “wet land” and “chira

land”.

12) Therefore, the short question, which arises for

consideration in these appeals, is whether the

5 determination made by the Courts below in relation

to “wet land” and “chira land” is just and proper or

it requires any modification by way of enhancement

as claimed by the appellants (landowners) in these

appeals.

13) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

14) At the outset, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants brought to our notice that the

Reference Court in another case of the landowners,

whose lands were also acquired in these very

acquisition proceedings, determined the

compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/­ per cent for

the wet land.

15) It was his submission that the determination

made by the Reference Court was not challenged by

the State and hence it became final. Learned

counsel, therefore, contended that since the

appellants’ land and the other landowners’ land,

6 who were awarded compensation in these very

acquisition proceedings, are identical in all respects,

therefore, they are also entitled to claim the

compensation at the same rate, i.e., Rs. 2000/­ per

cent which was awarded to other landowners for

their wet land.

16) We find force in the submission of learned

counsel for the appellants. It is more so when the

learned counsel for the respondents could not

dispute this factual statement except to support the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High

Court in the impugned order.

17) Even otherwise on perusal of the entire record

of the case and the findings of all the Courts below,

we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by

the Reference Court in the earlier round of litigation

awarding Rs. 2000/­ per cent for the wet land

7 though set aside by the High Court in the earlier

round yet it deserves to be restored again.

18) In other words, in our view, the award of

Rs.2000/­ per cent for the wet land appears to be

just, proper and reasonable keeping in view the

nature of the land, its surroundings and location

and similarity with the land owned by other

landowners to whom compensation was awarded at

the rate of Rs.2000/­ per cent. In our opinion, it

represents correct market value of the wet land on

the date of acquisition (25.11.1980) and was,

therefore, rightly determined by the Reference Court

in cases of other landowners in relation to their

lands acquired in these proceedings.

19) So far as the rates of other two nature of lands

are concerned, namely, dry and chira, their rates do

not call for any interference and nor any attempt

8 was made by the appellants to question its legality

and, in our view, rightly.

20) In this view of the matter, we are of the

considered view that the appellants are entitled to

claim compensation for their wet land at the rate of

Rs. 2000/­ per cent in place of Rs. 500/­ per cent

determined by the High Court in the impugned

order. As a necessary consequence, the appellants

are also entitled for other statutory compensation

payable under the Act keeping in view the

enhancement made by this Court.

9

21) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are hereby allowed in part. The

Impugned order is modified to the extent indicated

above.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J. [S. ABDUL NAZEER]

New Delhi;

August 10, 2018

10