Kerala High Court
Elsamma Ponnattil vs The Special Tahsildar (La) on 5 June, 2025
L.A.Appl.No.93 of 2019
2025:KER:40874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1947
LA.APP. NO. 93 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2018 IN LAR NO.210
OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT:
ELSAMMA PONNATTIL
AGED 80 YEARS
W/O.JOHN,PONNATTIL,AMBAYATHODU.P.O,
NELLIYODI,KOTTIYOOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
SRI.ANIL GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
THALASSERY.
2 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
KANNUR.
3 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.REKHA C NAIR-SR.GP FOR RESPONDENTS
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 05.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
L.A.Appl.No.93 of 2019
2025:KER:40874
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
.........................................
L.A.App.No.93 of 2019
.........................................................
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2025
ORDER
1. The Claimant in a reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is the appellant.
2. An extent of 5.74 Ares comprised in new Sy. No.3037 of Kottiyoor Amsom Desom, Thalassery Taluk, was acquired from the claimant for the purpose of the Elephant Corridor Project at Kottiyoor. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs.21,916/- for the said land as per the award dated 25.04.2012. Since the claimant failed to produce the necessary title deeds before the Land Acquisition Officer, the same was deposited in the Reference Court.
3. Before the Reference Court, the claimant appeared and claimed compensation. The son of the claimant was examined as AW1, and Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, one document was marked as Ext.R1. The claimant took out a commission, and the commissioner filed a Report and Plan. The Commissioner's Report was marked as Ext.X2, and the Plan was marked as Ext.X1. The Reference Court answered L.A.Appl.No.93 of 2019 2025:KER:40874 the reference, rejecting the claim of the claimant for the deposited amount. Hence, the present appeal is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Joby Jacob Pulickekudy and the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. Rekha C. Nair for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, admittedly, the land was taken into possession from the claimant. Along with the subject land, an extent of 2 Acres was also acquired from the claimant. The compensation with respect to the said 2 Acres was given to the claimant. The said 2 Acres and another 1 Acre of land are covered by Ext. A1 document. When the Ext.A1 document was executed, the property was not measured and hence the actual extent could not be included in Ext.A1. Though Ext.A1 covers only 2 Acres of land, the Land Tax Receipts would show that the entire 3 Acres of land within the boundaries in Ext.A1 is mutated in the name of the claimant. The Advocate Commissioner has correctly identified the acquired land of 5.74 Ares as Plot B in Ext.X1 Plan. The respondents did not file any objection to the Exts.X1 Plan and X2 Report.
6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that Ext.A1 covers only 2 Acres of land and there L.A.Appl.No.93 of 2019 2025:KER:40874 is no indication that any excess land is included in Ext.A1. The 1 Acre of land which is claimed by the claimant and which is not included in Ext.A1, is a part of forest land, and the forest department is taking steps to assert its right over the said land. Since the acquired land is not situated inside the property covered by Ext.A1, which is identified by the Advocate Commissioner as per the Ext.X1 Plan as Plot B, the deposited compensation cannot be disbursed to the claimant. Though the claimant filed O.S No. 324 of 2012 with respect to the said 1 Acre of land, which is not included in Ext. A1, he did not prosecute the said suit and it was dismissed. If the claimant had title over the said 1 Acre of land, they would have prosecuted the said suit for asserting the right over the said property. Hence, the claimant cannot claim the acquired land of 5.74 Ares, which is a part of the said 1 Acre. The learned Senior Government Pleader made available the copy of the judgment dated 30.11.2010 in W.P.(C)No.29146 filed by the claimant in which the claim of the claimant was that the forest department has prepared a new sketch and the new sketch does not tally with the sketch prepared way back in the year 1976, and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court.
L.A.Appl.No.93 of 2019
2025:KER:40874
7. I have considered the rival contentions.
8. The claimant produced Exts.A1 to A6 to claim the deposited compensation with respect to the aforesaid 5.74 Ares. Ext.A1 is the title deed of the claimant. It covers only 1 Acre of land, corresponding to 0.8094 hectares of land. Ext.A1 does not mention any excess land within the boundaries of Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the Land Tax Receipt in Thandaper No.4748 of Kottiyoor Village, in which 40.40 Ares of land in Sy. No. 2606 is mutated in the name of Elsamma. Ext. A3 is the Land Tax Receipt in which 80.90 Ares of land in Sy. No. 2606 is mutated in the name of the claimant as per Thandaper No. 4748 of Kottiyoor Village. Both Receipts are for the same year. It would indicate that a total extent of 3 Acres is mutated in the name of the claimant. Ext. A4 Possession certificate covers only 2 Acres of land. Ext. A5 is the sketch the claimant obtained under the Right to Information Act from the Special Tahsildar Office, Land Acquisition, Thalassery, to show that the said sketch tallies with the sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner, which is marked as Ext. X1. Ext. A6 is the certified copy of the plaint in OS No. 324 of 2012. The respondents have no case that the land was not acquired or taken possession from the claimant. Though the Division L.A.Appl.No.93 of 2019 2025:KER:40874 Forest Officer, Kannur, is also a party to the Reference, it is seen that the Forest Department has not made any claim over the said land. It is true that Ext.A1 covers only 2 Acres of land, and no excess land is noted within the boundaries therein. But Exts. A2 and A3 Land Tax Receipts cover 3 Acres of land in Thandaper No.4748 in the name of the claimant. The respondents did not have a case before the Reference Court that the land belonged to the government. If the land belonged to the Government, the Government would not have acquired the land from the claimant. Nobody other than the claimant has claimed compensation before the Reference Court. Hence, going by the claim and documents available before the Reference Court, the only probability is that only the claimant is having right over the acquired land of 5.74 Ares, and hence, he alone is entitled to get the award amount of Rs.21,916/-. The question of whether the Forest Department has raised a claim subsequent to the Reference is a matter to be agitated in subsequent proceedings. The Reference Court is expected to consider the pleadings and evidence that are available before it. On considering the totality of the evidence before the Reference Court, it is clear that the claimant alone is having rights over the property acquired. If the Forest L.A.Appl.No.93 of 2019 2025:KER:40874 Department is having any claim with respect to the remaining land out of the said excess land of 1 Acre, the said matter is to be agitated separately, and the decision in this appeal will not be a bar for the same.
9. Accordingly, this Land Acquisition Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court in LAR No.210 of 2012 and answering the Reference in favor of the claimant allowing the claimant to withdraw the amount of Rs.21,916/- lying in court deposit.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, JUDGE Dxy