Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 312 (KER)

Kochukutty Purushan v. State of Kerala

2003-04-11

K.A.MOHAMMED SHAFI

body2003
Judgment :- 1. In this appeal preferred by the claimant in LAR 37/90 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala, the grievance is that the lower court denied the benefit of S.23(2) and 28 of the amended Land Acquisition Act to the appellant for the enhanced compensation awarded in this case. 2.3.35 Ares of land comprised in Sy. No. 53/4/4 of Vayalar West Village was acquired for the National Highway as per the notification dated 24.4.1971 issued under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer by the award dated 11.9.1972 awarded land value at the rate of Rs. 610/- per Are. The reference court enhanced the land value to Rs. 2,000/- per Are by the impugned judgment dated 22.2.1996. The lower court denied the benefits of S.23(2) and 28 of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the appellant, he is entitled to the benefits of the amended S.23(2) and 28 of the L.A. Act since the award is passed by the lower court in the reference on 22.2.1996 in view of the transitional provisions in the amending Act 68/1984. 3. The Land Acquisition Act was amended by the amending Act, 68/84 with effect from 24.9.1984. S.30 of the Act 68/84 deals with the transitional provisions. S.30(2) lays down that the provisions of S.23(2) and 28 as amended shall be deemed to have applied also, to and in relation to any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the Principal Act after 30th April, 1982, the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, 1982 in the House of People and before the commencement of the Act. 4. In this case though the notification under S.3(1) of the L.A. Act was issued on 24.4.1971 and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 11.9.1972, since the matter was pending before the reference court and the award was passed by the reference court only on 22.2.1996, the appellant claimed that he is entitled to the benefit of S.23(2) and 28 regarding enhanced solatium and interest respectively as per the amended Act. 5. 5. S. 23(2) lays down that in addition to the market value of the land as provided in S.23(1), the court shall in every case award a sum at 30% on such market value in considering the compulsory nature of acquisition. Before the amendment of S.23(2) by Act 68/84, the award of solatium was at 15% on the market value. 6. S. 28 stipulates that on enhanced compensation the Collector shall be directed to pay interest on such excess compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which possession of the property was taken to the date of payment of such excess into court. It further provides that when such excess amount or part thereof is paid in court after the date of expiry of the period of one year from the date on which possession was taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into court before the date of such expiry. 7. It is clear from the impugned judgment itself that the above proceedings was pending before the reference court on 30.4.1982 when the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill of 1984 was introduced before the House of People, though the notification under S.3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act was issued and the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer much before that. By virtue of sub-s. (2) of S.30 of the Act 68/84, in all cases which were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, reference Court, High Court or the Supreme Court on 30.4.1982 under the provisions of the Principal Act, the claimant is entitled to the benefit under S.23(2) and 28 of the amended Act. Under the circumstances the lower court was in error in disallowing the benefit under S.23(2) and 28 of the amended Act to the appellant. Hence this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is modified and the benefit under S.23(2) and 28 of the amended Land Acquisition Act is awarded to the appellant on the enhanced compensation awarded by the lower court.