IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30331 of 2006(J)
1. GOURIKUTTY AMMA,
... Petitioner
2. T.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.30331/2006,
W.P.(C) No. 33592/2006,
W.P.(C) No. 30228/2006 &
W.P.(C) No.30186/2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
In all these Writ Petitions the challenge is against the order
passed by the Additional Sub Court, Kollam in Land Acquisition
Reference Cases where by the application filed by the claimant
in the respective cases to set aside the exparte judgment was
dismissed by the court below. The reference court passed Ext.
P1 judgment on the ground that the claimant was not present.
There is no discussion on the merits of the case. The court
below “confirmed” the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer. A Land Acquisition reference is not an appeal wherein
the court is expected to confirm the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer. In Joseph v. Government of Kerala (1991(2)
KLT 69), a Division Bench of this court held that where a
reference is made to the court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, it is the duty of the court to determine the
WPC 30331/2006 2
amount of compensation payable for the land acquired. The
court cannot refuse to determine the amount of compensation
even where the claimant remains absent or fails to adduce
evidence. The court is bound to pass an award and it cannot
dismiss the reference for default. In Khazan Singh v. Union of
India (2002(1) KLT 644(SC)) the Supreme Court affirmed the
view taken by the High Court in Joseph v. Government of Kerala
and held that the Civil court has to pass an award in answer to
the reference made by the collector under Section 18 of the Act.
Non participation of any party would not confer jurisdiction on
the Civil court to dismiss the reference for default.
It is true that the reference court was justified in holding
that an application for restoration under Rule 9 order 9 would
not be maintainable in view of the decision in Joseph Vs.
Government of Kerala. But the very same decision says that
reference court is not entitled to refuse to determine the amount
of compensation, which was not taken note of by the court
below. Therefore, Ext. P1 judgment in all the Writ Petitions are
WPC 30331/2006 3
set aside as there is gross violation of law and since the court did
not follow the binding precedents. The reference court shall
dispose of the reference cases, namely, LAR Nos. 273 of 1997,
91 of 1991, 47 of 1996 and 133 of 1996 on the merits. The
claimants shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to produce
documents and to adduce evidence.
The Writ Petitions are allowed as indicated above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl
WPC 30331/2006 4