IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 434 of 2006()
1. JOSEPH, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL,
... Petitioner
2. MATHEW, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYEILI,
3. ROSA W/O.THOMAS, PANAYELIL, ENANALLOOR.
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent
2. JOSE, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL,
3. THOMAS, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL,
4. ANTHAPPAN, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL,
5. MATHAI, S/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL,
6. MARY, D/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL,ENANALLOOR
7. BRIJITH D/O.YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL,
8. K.J.ROSE, W/O.LATE JOSE, PANAYELIL
9. RAAJESH, S/O.LATE JOSE, PANAYELIL HOUSE,
10. JOSEPH, PANEYEILI, PERUMBALOOR,
11. MARIAM, C/O.P.V.JOSEPH, PARIYARATHUVEEDU
12. THRESSIA, C/O.IMMANEL POOKKATTUSALIL
13. MATHAI IYPE, PANAYELIL, PERUMBALLOOR,
14. YOHANNAN, PANAYELIL, ANIKKADU, AVOLY P.O
15. ANNAMMA, W/O.MATHAI, PANAYELIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP
For Respondent :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :06/10/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J.
------------------------
L.A.A.No.434 OF 2006
------------------------
Dated this the 6th of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The bone of contention between the parties in this appeal is
Ext.X1 consent, by which the predecessor -in-interest of
respondents 8 and 9 and the legal heirs of Sri. Yohannan original
owner of the properties, had consented that the entire
compensation for the acquired properties can be disbursed to the
present appellants. The present appellants were in possession
and enjoyment of the acquired properties. It was from their
possession that the property was taken over by the Government.
Pursuant to Ext.X1, the initial compensation of Rs.8,000/- was
paid to the present appellants. This was done relying on Ext.X1.
Dispute arose thereafter before the land acquisition officer. It
was claimed by the contesting respondents that, they being the
title holders, should be paid the entire compensation. Relying on
Ext.X1, the appellants contended that Ext.X1 having been
voluntarily given and the same having been acted upon, it is not
open to respondents 8 and 9 to turn round and claim
L.A.A..No.434/2006 2
compensation.
2. Sri.Mathews K.Philip, learned counsel for the
appellants, addressed me very strenuously on all the grounds
raised in the appeal memo. He argued that there was no scope
for any enquiry before the land acquisition officer since Ext.X1
had been given and the officer should have disbursed the entire
compensation relying on Ext.X1 which had once been relied on
by him.
3. Sri.R. Bindu Sasthamangalam, counsel for respondents
8 and 9, would place strong reliance on the judgment of the Full
Bench in Ranee Sidhan v. Special Tahsildar for Land
Acquisition (1974 K.L.T. 724) . He drew my attention to the
award file. He submitted that the award will show that the entire
compensation is towards land value and the statutory benefits is
calculated upon such land value. No portion of the
compensation is towards value of improvements. He further
submitted that no claim statement was filed by the present
appellants making any claim towards the value of improvements.
4. I have considered the rival submissions addressed at the
bar and I have gone through the entire records which are
L.A.A..No.434/2006 3
available. I will immediately notice that the balance
compensation amount now presently under deposit i.e.27,596/-
represents the value of the acquired land and the statutory
benefits due upon such value. Total compensation of Rs.35,596/-
was determined and the advance amount of Rs.8,000/- already
paid to the appellants was deducted. The file also reveals that
the claim statement was filed in the award enquiry only by the
predecessor in interest of the contesting respondents. He
claimed land value at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per cent.
Sri.Mathews K.Philip would highlight before me Ext.X1 consent.
5. On a reading of Ext.X1, it is seen that an unconditional
consent was given by the predecessor in interest of the
contesting respondents for disbursement of the entire
compensation to the appellants. But, it has been clearly laid
down by the Full Bench in Ranee Sidhan’s case (supra) that
failure on the part of the party who is interested in the amount
under the acquisition to claim compensation or part thereof, or
his failure to dispute the claims advanced by others, or even an
admission that another is entitled to the compensation amount,
in proceedings before the Collector cannot preclude him from
L.A.A..No.434/2006 4
advancing his claim and establishing the same, at any
subsequent stage, before the Collector or before the Court, so
long as the rule of conclusive evidence stated in Section 31 of
the Act is not in his way. His conduct, failure to claim or to
dispute another’s claim, or the admission, as the case may be,
can, if established be a relevant fact under the ordinary rules of
evidence in assessing the merits of his claim, but he is under
those rules of evidence also entitled to explain away these facts,
and to establish his title to compensation or part thereof. It is
seen that the appellants did not have any claim for title over the
acquired property. Their claim could only be that they are in
possession and they are entitled to the value of the
improvements. It is not disputed that the appellants were in
possession. But, as already indicated, compensation amounts
represents value of the land only.
Following the judgment of the Full Bench I confirm the
judgment of the reference court. The appeal will stand
dismissed. No costs.
(PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE)
dpk