Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 561 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Sankara Panicker

1989-12-22

BALAKRISHNAN

body1989
Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the award passed in L.A.R. 148/81 of Sub Court, Mavelikkara. An extent of 13.60 Acres of land in Sy.No.182/6B/2 and 182/7-2 of Mulakuzha village in Chengannur Taluk was acquired for the purpose of Kallada Irrigation Project. A composite notification under S.3(1) and 19(4) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was published on 29-5-1976. The State took possession of the land on 31-5-1977. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.1715/- per Acre and a total sum of Rs.13153.96 was awarded as compensation. The claimant prayed for enhancement of the compensation contending that the land should have been valued at Rs.700/- per cent. The matter was referred to the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. Before the court below the claimant filed a written statement claiming land value at Rs.700/- per cent. The court below considered the claim of the claimant and allowed enhancement to the respondent-claimant by fixing the land value at Rs.700/-per cent. This is challenged by the State. 2. Before the reference court the claimant produced Ext.Al. It is a certified copy of the judgment passed in L.A.R.291/78 of Sub Court, Mavelikkara. Exts.A1 judgment was in respect of acquisition of a nearby property. The court below considered Ext.Al and on that basis held that the claimant was entitled to get enhancement of the land value. In Ext.Al the land value was fixed at Rs.4375/-per Acre. Ext. Al sale deed was relied on in Ext. Al judgment. Based on the valuation adopted in Ext. Al judgment the court fixed the land value at Rs.700/- per cent, which I do not think calls for any interference. 3. The respondent filed a memorandum of cross appeal contending that the land value should be enhanced to Rs.1750/-per cent. It is contended that even though the claimant filed written statement to the effect that he was entitled to get only 700/- per cent, that was a mistake and the claimant really intended Rs.1750/- per cent. The learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that at the time of giving evidence the claimant had stated that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.2000/- per cent. The contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the respondent also pointed out that at the time of giving evidence the claimant had stated that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.2000/- per cent. The contention of the respondent cannot be accepted. In the first objection submitted by the claimant before the Land Acquisition Officer pursuant to the notice under S.3(1) of the K.L.A. Act, the claimant wanted to fix the 'land value only at Rs.700/- per cent. He received the compensation amount under protest and stated that he was entitled to Rs. 700/- per cent. Before the court below he filed a statement to the effect that the value is to be fixed at Rs.700/- pet cent. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the court erred in fixing the land value at Rs.700/- percent cannot be accepted. The impugned judgment was passed on 19th October, 1982, that is, prior to the commencement of the Land Acquisition Act 68/84. Under S.27 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, the court shall not award more than the amount claimed by the claimant. S.27 is to the following effect: "27. Rules as to amount of compensation (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under S.9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under SM." S.27 was the relevant provision applicable at the time when the judgment was passed. It is pointed out by the respondent's counsel that in the new Central Act, Act 68 of 1984 under S.25 the Court is competent to award any amount and the court can even pass an award exceeding the claim put forward by the claimant. S.25 of the Central Act only says that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under S.11. That does not give an unfettered discretion on the court to award any amount, even exceeding the claim put forward by the owner of the acquired land. Here, the respondent was awarded compensation at the rate claimed by him. The appeal as well as the cross appeal fails and both are dismissed. 4. The award was passed on 30-4-1982. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get the benefits of the Central Act 68 of 1984. Here, the respondent was awarded compensation at the rate claimed by him. The appeal as well as the cross appeal fails and both are dismissed. 4. The award was passed on 30-4-1982. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to get the benefits of the Central Act 68 of 1984. The claimant is entitled to get solatium at 30% of the-market value. He is also entitled to get interest at 9% for the compensation amount for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% till realisation. Dismissed.