Kerala High Court
K.T.Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2012
Author: A. V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/10TH CHAITHRA 1934
LA.App.No.945 of 2008 (A)
---------------------------
(AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAR.NO.51/2005 of III ADDL.SUB COURT,
ERNAKULAM).
APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANTS:
----------------------------------------
1. K.T.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.VELU NAIR,
480-NGO COLONY, ASHOKAPURAM, COIMBATORE TALUK
NOW WORKING AS ESTATE OFFICER, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT, VASTRAPUR, AHAMMEDABAD-389 915.
2. PADMA UNNIKRISHNAN, W/O.K.T.UNNIKRISHNAN
480-NGO COLONY, ASHOKAPURAM, COIMBATORE TALUK.
NOW RESIDING AT AHAMMEDABAD-389 915.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.BABU
SMT.N.SUDHA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) N.H.III, VYTTILA, KOCHI-19.
2. INLAND WATER WAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
2347-N, PARAMARA SHOPPING COMPLEX, COCHIN-18.
R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.R.SYAM KUMAR.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM, SC, IWAI
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
L.A.A No.945 of 2008.
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
The claimants before the reference court in reference under Section 28A(3), challenges the order of the reference court answering the reference in the negative - entering a finding that the appellants/claimants are not entitled for redetermination of the compensation payable to them under Section 28A(3). The appellants filed application under Section 28A before the Land Acquisition Officer relying on the court award in L.A.R No.68/2001. The above application was rejected/dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the reason that there was no similarity between the properties covered by L.A.R No.68/01 and the properties under acquisition. It was in that context that the appellants applied under Section 28A(3) for a reference to the court. The above application was allowed by L.A.A No.945 of 2008 -:2:- the Land Acquisition Officer. This was how the case came before the reference court under Section 28A(3).
2. Before the reference court, instead of continuing to place reliance on the judgment in L.A.R No.68/01, what the appellants did was to produce Ext.A1, which was a subsequent judgment in L.A.R No.66/01 series.
3. According to Smt.N.Sudha, learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants' justification for producing Ext.A1 was that Ext.A1 pertains to the same category of properties, as the properties under acquisition. In her submission, Ext.A1 was more apposite, for redetermining the value of the property under acquisition. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, took the view that the appellants cannot aspire for redetermination of the value of their acquired properties on the basis of Ext.A1, as Ext.A1 was not the award, which had been relied on in the application under Section 28A.
L.A.A No.945 of 2008 -:3:-
4. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be said to be faulty. In an application under Section 28A(3), the appellant is bound to place reliance on the very award which is relied on in the application under Section 28A, even when the matter comes to the reference court in a reference under Section 28A(3).
5. According to us, the issue could have been solved, if the judgment of this Court in Raghava Poduval v. Special Tahsildar (2004 (3) KLT 261) had been noticed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The ratio of the judgment in Raghava Poduval's case (cited supra) is that even when the court finds that there is some category difference between the property under acquisition and the property which is the subject matter of the award which is relied in reference under Section 28A(3), the court or the Land Acquisition Officer is bound of make redetermination giving proportionate increase or decrease based on the award relied on. If it was seen that the property in L.A.R No.68/01 belonged to a superior category, the learned Subordinate Judge could have been awarded proportionately a L.A.A No.945 of 2008 -:4:- decreased value, after calling for the records pertaining to the original award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer so that, the different rates awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for different categories could be understood. It seems that such a course was not adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge.
6. Even as we are able to approve the action of the learned Subordinate Judge in discarding the claim of the appellants, bases on a subsequent award, Ext.A1, we feel that the learned Subordinate Judge should have embarked upon redetermining the market value of the land belonging to the appellants on the basis of the award in L.A.R No.68/01. This should be done by the learned Subordinate Judge after calling for the records pertaining to the original award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
7. As the records are not before us, we are inclined to remit back the case to the reference court. We set aside the impugned award and remand the L.A.R No.51/05 to the learned Subordinate Judges Court, Ernakulam. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed L.A.A No.945 of 2008 -:5:- to answer the reference under Section 28A(3) after redetermining the value of the property under acquisition on the basis of the award in L.A.R No.68/01, which was produced by the appellants along with their application under Section 28A and after perusing the original award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in other cases, so that, the different values awarded by the Officer for different categories can be understood.
Revised award shall be passed, keeping in mind, the principles laid down by this Court in Raghava Poduval's case (cited supra).
sd/-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE sd/-
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE krj