Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 276 (KER)

State Of Kerala v. Karunakaran Nair

2019-03-20

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : This is an appeal preferred by the State challenging the award in a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act'). 2. 0.60 Ares of land held by the first respondent was acquired for the oubling work of Kayamkulam-Kollam Railway line, pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 07.07.1991. The land value fixed by Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired land was Rs.7,866/- per Are. The first respondent received the compensation ranted on that basis for the acquired land. Later, in a reference under Secton 18 of the Act, viz, LAR No.80 of 1997, the reference court enhanced the land value of another land covered by the same notification, but categorized differently, from Rs.8,581/- per Are to Rs.24,700/- per Are. The first respondent then preferred an application for re-determination of the compensation granted to him in tune with the award in LAR No.80 of 1997, invoking Section 28A(1) of the Act. On the said application, the Collector re-determined the compensation payable for the acquired land .80 of 1997, by granting proportionate increase. The land value was, therefore, redetermined at Rs.22,641.90/-. Nevertheless, the first respondent sought a reference under Section 28A(3) of the Act as, according to him, the Collector ought to have granted for the acquired land, the land value granted by the reference court in LAR No.80 of 1997. The reference court enhanced and refixed the land value of the acquired land as prayed for by the first respondent. The State is aggrieved by the said decision of the reference court. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer had categorized the lands notified for acquisition for the purpose of fixing the land value. The land held by the first respondent was included in Category II and the land involved in LAR No.80 of 1997 was included in Category I. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.7,866/- per Are for the lands included in Category II and at Rs.8,581/- per Are for the lands included in Category I. It L.A.A.No.229 of 2016 is the land value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for one of the lands included in Category I that was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.24,700/-. It is on account of the said reason that the Collector has made a proportionate reduction while redetermining the compensation payable to the first respondent. It is seen that the reference court has modified the award passed by the Collector and redetermined the compensation in tune with the award passed by the reference court in LAR No.80 of 1997 on the ground that the extent of the land involved being only 0.60 Ares, the same is liable to be treated as one falling under Category I. I am afraid, I cannot endorse the view taken by the reference court. Section 28A is a provision introduced in the statute having regard to the fact that inarticulate and poor are not usually availing the remedy under Section 18 to get fair compensation for the lands acquired from them and therefore, there is considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for identical and similar lands. The object of the provision is to enable those who could not avail the remedy under Section 18 to obtain compensation for the lands acquired from them also, as in the case of those who received enhanced compensation under Section 18. The reference under Section 28A(3) is a mechanism provided to ensure the said objective. The jurisdiction of the court in a reference under Section 28A(3) is, therefore, to ensure that the re-determination of the compensation made by the Collector is in tune with the award in the reference case in respect of which parity was sought by the land owner. The reference court, in exercise of the said jurisdiction cannot, therefore, treat a land included by the Land Acquisition Officer in one category as one included in another category and redetermine the compensation on that basis as done in the instant case, even if there are justifiable reasons for doing so, for such powers which are available to the court in a reference under Section 18 are not available to the court in a reference under Section 28A(3). If it is held that reference court has such powers, there will be no finality to the process of adjudication of the land value and compensation provided for under the Act and the provision would be availed of by land owners to get more compensation than what was granted by the reference court for identical and similar lands on grounds similar to the one taken in the instant case, and if the provision is availed for such purposes, the same would resurrect the vise that was sought to be prevented in terms of Section 28A. In the said view of the matter, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. In the result, the land acquisition appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside and the award of the Collector is restored.