IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 1203 of 2010(O)
1. M/S.BAINDS TOWERS PVT.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. JANAKI AMMA, D/O.KAMALAKSHI PILLAI,
3. RUGMINI AMMA, D/O.KAMALAKSHI PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI. K.SHAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :20/12/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J
-----------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.1203 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
JUDGMENT
Learned Government Pleader takes notice for
respondent No.1. Notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is
dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass and in
the light of the submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner about finding entered by the court below on the
reference under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. There were two references, under Sections 18(1)
and 31(2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner
tells me that the reference under Section 31(2) has been
answered in favour of petitioner/ additional claimant and he
has received compensation awarded. When the matter was
pending in the reference court (L.A.R. No.256/07 of the Sub
Court, Thiruvananthapuram). Petitioner wanted an
additional claim statement to be filed in the said case and
did so, along with I.A.No.7904/2009 to receive the
O.P.(C) No.1203/2010
2
additional claim statement. Learned Sub Judge, vide
Ext.P3, order rejected I.A.No.7904/2009, holding that there
is no provision to receive any such additional claim
statement. Ext.P3 order is under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that
Ext.P3, order is not sustainable and that the additional
claim statement filed along with I.A.No.7904/2009 must be
treated as a subsequent pleading which could be
entertained by the court invoking Rule 9 of Order VIII of the
Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘The Code’). I have heard
learned Government Pleader also in this regard.
4. Learned Sub Judge was in error in holding that
there is no provision to receive an additional claim
statement. Section 25 of the Act states that the amount of
compensation awarded by the court shall not be less than
the amount awarded by the court under Section 11. Though
it is not as if the court therefore has unfettered power to
pass award for any amount by way of compensation, it is
clear from Section 25 that it is open to the court to award
O.P.(C) No.1203/2010
3
compensation more than what has been awarded by the
Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The procedure
before reference court is governed by the provisions of the
Code so far as it is not inconsistent with any other
provisions of the Act, as Section 53 of the Act states. In the
matter of reception of additional claim statement, there is
no provision in the Act which is inconsistent with the
provisions of order VIII of the Code.
5. Rule 378 of the Civil Rules of practice (for short ‘the
Rules of practice’) deals with service of notice and trial of
references. Sub Rule 3 says that the application before the
Collector for references shall be treated as a plaint and that
investigation shall be with reference to the claim made
therein. Sub Rules 4 says that claimants may, and, if so
required by the court, shall, at or before the first hearing or
within such time as the court may permit, present written
statement settling out their claim in full. Under Sub Rule 5,
the Collector, the Company and the local authorities may
and if so required by the court shall, file a reply statement.
O.P.(C) No.1203/2010
4
Sub Rule 6 says that the statements filed under Sub Rules 4
and 5 shall together with the application for reference
constitute pleadings in the case and that Rules in Order VII
and VIII of the Code shall apply mutatis mutandis to such
statements.
6. The above Sub Rules of Rule 378 of the Rules of
practice read along with Section 53 of the Act referred to
above leaves me in no doubt that it is within the power of
reference court to receive a subsequent pleadings as
referred to in Rule 9 of Order VIII of the Code. In that view
of the matter, learned Sub Judge was not correct in holding
that there is no provision to receive additional claim
statement.
7. On the question whether petitioner should be
allowed to file claim statement, learned counsel submitted
that petitioner had submitted a preliminary written
statement along with document (in answer to the reference
under Section 31(2) of the Act) and that petitioner wanted
to submit a detailed written statement regarding
O.P.(C) No.1203/2010
5
enhancement of compensation.
8. Ext.P2 is the copy of I.A.No.7904/2009. Having
gone through the affidavit in support of Ext.P2, I am
inclined to think that petitioner could be given opportunity
to file additional claim statement, of course without
prejudice to the right of the respondent No.1 to file reply
statement, if any to such additional statement.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed in the following
lines.
(i)Ext.P3, order rejecting I.A No.7904/2009 in
L.A.R. No.256/2007 of the Court of learned
Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is set
aside.
(ii) I.A. No.7904/2009 is allowed and the
learned Sub Judge shall receive the
additional claim statement filed by
petitioner.
(iii)Learned Sub Judge shall give sufficient
O.P.(C) No.1203/2010
6
opportunity to respondent No.1 or any
other contesting respondent if any to file
reply statement in answer to the additional
statement of petitioner.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
(JUDGE)
ss/-
