Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 229 (KER)

T. P. Kamalakshmi Amma v. The Special Tahasildar

2004-06-02

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

body2004
Judgment :- This appeal is against the judgment of the reference court in a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer on a consideration of the application under Section 28A filed by the appellant-claimant re-determined the compensation payable to her on the basis of the judgment relied on in the application, certified copies of which had been produced. In fact, land value for the appellant’s acquired property was re-determined in terms of the court-award on the basis of which re-determination was sought for. The Land Acquisition Officer however did not award any additional value by way of improvements nor did the Land Acquisition Officer award statutory benefits on the re-determined compensation, taking the view that applicants in proceeding under Section 28A are not entitled for statutory benefits. Since the appellant was dissatisfied with the order of the Land Acquisition Officer, at her instance the reference under Section 28A(3) was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the reference Court and the judgment impugned in this appeal is passed in that case. 2. Before the reference court the appellant adduced evidence examining three witnesses and producing Exts.A1 to A3. On the side of the respondent, Exts. B1 to B5 were produced.Ext.C1 commissioner’s report was also obtained at the instance of the appellant. Vide the impugned judgment the reference court answered the reference against the appellant. The court found on the authority of decisions that the appellant is not entitled for interest at the statutory rates of 9% and 15% on the excess amount paid to her under the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings under Section 28A. The Court also found that the appellant is not entitled for re-determination of compensation in respect of improvements and structures. 3. Heard Sr. T.P. Eldho representing the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. R. Muraleedharan Pillai, learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. Mr. Eldho submitted that there was no justification at all for the appellant not being paid interest on the re-determined amount especially in view of the decision of this Court in Koruthukochukutty v. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 26) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi (AIR 1997 SC 1779). Eldho submitted that there was no justification at all for the appellant not being paid interest on the re-determined amount especially in view of the decision of this Court in Koruthukochukutty v. State of Kerala (2000 (1) KLT 26) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi (AIR 1997 SC 1779). Counsel further submitted that there was good evidence before the reference court to hold that what had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer initially by way of value of improvements was very low and on the basis of the documents including the commissioner’s report it should have been held that the appellant is entitled for the enhanced value recommended by the commissioner as value of improvements. According to counsel, a reference under Section 28A(3) is to be dealt with and decided by the reference court in the same manner as references under Section 18 since Section 28A(3) specifically provides that the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall apply to references under Section 28A(3) also. 5. The submission of Mr. Eldho that the appellant is entitled for payment of interest on the compensation re-determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28A certainly has force. This Court has held in Korutbukochukutty (supra) that the legislative objective underlying Section 28A is to create a parity in the matter of compensation received by alert claimants who had sought for reference to courts under Section 18 and those inarticulate and poor people who were unable to seek such a reference. When the awardees of enhanced compensation under judgments of the reference court in references under Section 18 are getting interest at the statutory rates it is only in keeping with the legislative intendment that awardees under section 28A should also get such interest. 6. But it will be difficult to accept the argument of Mr. Eldho that the reference considered by the reference court under Section 28A(3) is for all purposes a reference under section 18 itself and therefore the claimant ought to be given enhanced value of improvements on the basis of the evidence adduced before the reference court. Section 28A is intended to bring forth a parity in the value of land given to persons whose similar lands have been acquired under the very same Section 4(1) notification irrespective of whether they sought a reference under Section 18 or not. Section 28A is intended to bring forth a parity in the value of land given to persons whose similar lands have been acquired under the very same Section 4(1) notification irrespective of whether they sought a reference under Section 18 or not. Re-determination of compensation contemplated under Section 28A is re-determination of compensation on account of land value and of course statutory benefits stemming from such re-determination of land value. Even otherwise, it is not difficult to hold that a situation of two neighbours whose properties have been acquired under the very same Section 4(1) notification being entitled for exactly the same compensation for improvements on their properties on the reason that the improvements on their properties were exactly the same is a very remote possibility. Section 28A(3) only mentions that “the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under Section 18” (underlining supplied). As already stated, applications under Section 28A envisage re-determination of compensation on account of land value and not value of improvements. The result is that the appeal will stand allowed in part. The judgment of the court below to the extent it refuses enhanced compensation on account of value of improvements will stand conformed. The judgment of the court below will stand modified to the extent of providing that the appellant will be entitled for interest on the compensation re-determined by the Land Acquisition officer at the rates of 9% during the first year and 15% thereafter till the date of payment. The decree will be drawn up in the above lines. No costs.