Kerala High Court
Raghava Poduval vs Special Tahsildar on 13 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(3)KLT261
Author: Pius C. Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C. Kuriakose
JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
1. The grievance of die appellant is that the Land Acquisition Officer dismissed the application under Section 28A filed by him on the ground that Ms property is registered as other dry lands while the property which is subject matter of the judgment relied OB in the application stood registered in the revenue records as garden land. Upon his application, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 28A(3) to the Court. The Court permitted the parties to adduce evidence. A Commissioner was deputed and he filed a report which indicates that appellant's land was a land planted with cashew trees and the trees were not high yielding ones. In other words the Court took the view that the lands covered by the judgment relied on by the appellant and the appellant's own land are not similar.
2. It is transparently clear from the award of the officer and from the award of the Court that the appellant's property and the property which was the subject matter of the court judgment relied on by the appellant were acquired under the very same 4(1) notification. But, of course it is not clear from the judgment as to what was the rate awarded by the officer originally to the appellant and to the party in the judgment which was relied on. Sri. O. Ramachandran Nambiar, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not necessary that the awarding officer should have given same rate to the applicant in an application under Section 28A and to the party in the judgment relied on in the said application. The learned Government Pleader submits that the objective behind under Section 28A is to give equal justice to those who were treated equally by the Land Acquisition Officer; in the matter of land value.
3. The argument of the learned Government Pleader has got some first blush attraction. Even then, the plain language of Section 28A in my view will not support the acceptance of such an argument, Section 28A reads as follows:
28A. Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court:-
(1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, Sub-section ( 1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court:
4. To endorse the view of the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court in this case will be to ignore legislative object underlying Section 28A. These are times when extensive areas of lands are acquired for major projects and the Land Acquisition Officer invariably has to categorise the lands covered by Section 4(1) notification relating to the acquisition scheme on the basis of the relative importance and advantages of the lands involved. Usually categorisation is done on the basis of main road frontage, nature of land (wet or dry), frontage of some Other roads, no road frontage at all etc. Different values will be awarded to lands coming under different categories. If Section 28A has to be understood as done by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court, the properties of the concerned applicant and the party in the court judgment relied on should come under the same category as per the award. But, it is an undeniable reality that there will be a certain correlation between the values of different types of land situated within a given local area which means that at least to a certain extent finding by a competent court that value of land in category No. 1 is more than what was given by the officer originally will justify a finding that value of other categories of land will also be more than what the officer granted to the owners of those categories. As to what is correct value for the properties belonging to some category other than the category covered by the judgment relied on in the application under Section 28A is a matter to be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer through the redetermination process which is contemplated under Section 28A and then by the Court in the reference under Section 28A(3).
5. If, as a matter of fact, the intention of the legislature was to give relief under Section 28A only to those persons who were treated equally for the purpose of original land value with the parties to the court judgment relied on then the legislature would not have employed the term 'redetermination'. If that was the intention, the legislature would have very well more plainly said that the same rate of land value shall be awarded. User of the expression determination in my view contemplates that the Land Acquisition Officer can award reasonable proportionate enhancement or reduction upon the land value given to the parties in the judgment relied on through the redetermination which is directed to be done under Section 28A. To maintain an application under Section 28A, the statutory requirements are only that the applicants award as well as the award of the party to the judgment which is relied on by the applicant should have been covered by the very same 4(1) notification and it is not necessary that both the parties should have been given the same rate of land value by the awarding officer. On the above view, I hold that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the reference court were not justified in insisting that the Land Acquisition Officer should originally have awarded the same land value for the appellant and to the party in the judgment relied by him and that both the lands should have been under the same category as per the revenue records. What is required is only that both the lands should have been covered by the very same 4(1) notification.
6. The result is that I set aside the judgment of the reference Court and remand the matter back to the reference Court. There will be a direction that the reference Court shall redetermine the compensation payable to the appellant on the basis of the Court judgment relied on by him in the application under Section 28A. If the land value given originally by the Land Acquisition Officer to the appellant was lesser than the land value given to the party in the judgment relied on, it will be open to the reference Court to make appropriate deductions proportionately while determining the compensation payable to the appellant. The parties will appear before the reference Court on the day when the Court reopens after onam vacation. Redetermination shall be made in the lines indicated herein above, within a maximum period of three months from the date when the parties entered appearance.
The L.A.A. is allowed as above. No costs.