IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
LA.App..No. 1518 of 2005(D)
1. RAMADEVI, GANAYA,
... Petitioner
2. VINOD KUMAR,
3. R.LALY,
4. V.PRASANTH,
Vs
1. R.VIMALAKUMARI,
... Respondent
2. K.RADHA, D/O.DEVAKI AMMA,
3. LEELA, T.C.NO.4/1615,
4. SUNITHA, T.C.NO.4/1615, PANAYIL VEEDU,
5. SUCHITHRA, T.C.NO.4/1615,
6. ELSY, T.C.NO.1615,
7. STATE OF KERALA,
8. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.D.SAJEEV
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :21/07/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L.A.A.No.1518 OF 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the legal heirs of the deceased second claimant
in a reference under section 31(2) of the land acquisition Act for
apportionment of the disputes between the claimants regarding the
compensation deposited by the land acquisition officer before the court.
A total extent of 1.20 Ares of land in R.S.No. 128 of
Thiruvananthapuram village was acquired by the government for the
purposes of the water authority and award was passed for an amount of
Rs. 1,22,900/-. The award was passed jointly in favour of J.Bhargavan
(C1), R.Velappan ( C2), R.Vimalakumari (C3) and K.Radha (C4).
2. The present appeal is filed by the legal heirs of Velappan
(C2) and the same is resisted by the legal heirs of Bargavan (C1) in
whose favour only the learned subordinate Judge under the impugned
award had directed release of the entire compensation. The appellants
had laid claim for proportionate amount of compensation due for 53
squre metres of land on the basis of Ext.A2 sale deed. Ext.A2 is dated
LAA.No.1518/05 2
27/01/1996. On the terms of Ext.A2 Bhargavan has conveyed a total
extent of one Are and 35 sq. metres of land corresponding to 3 cents
and 3 sq. links in favour of Velappan. The appellants’ claim is that
under the award passed by the land acquisition officer, 53 square
metres from out of the property covered by Ext.A2 had also been
acquired. The above claim is supported by the Mahazer dated
14/07/1997 prepared by the land acquisition officer at the time when
the acquired properties were taken possession of. The land acquisition
officer did not become inclined to award proportionate compensation
to Sri.Velappan because of the reason that Ext.A2 document is
executed between the parties long after the issuance of the initial
notification under section 4(1). A reading of the judgment of the
learned Subordinate Judge will show that the same reason found
favour with the learned Judge also. According to the learned Judge
sale deeds which are subsequent to the date of section 4(1) notification
are liable to be ignored. At the same time, the learned Judge has
observed in the judgment that if so advised, claimants 2, 3 and 4 can
resort to other civil remedies.
LAA.No.1518/05 3
3. Heard Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.D.Sajeev, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents. Sri.Biju Balakrishnan would submit that it is too
technical on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to have declined
relief to the appellants and to have relegated them to a second round of
litigation before a regular civil court. He drew my attention to the
documents such as Ext.A2 and the Mahazer and would argue that there
is every justification for the appellants being paid their due share out of
the compensation under deposit.
4. Sri.D.Sajeev per contra, would draw my attention to the
property description in the schedule of Ext.A2 document. Learned
counsel submitted that the same will show that the property which was
acquired for the purposes of the water authority has been specifically
excluded from the conveyance in favour of the appellants. I am unable
to accept the argument of Sri.D.Sajeev. Ext.A2 sale deed is dated
27/1/1996 and the Mahazer dated 14/07/1997 will show clearly that it
is on that date that the property was taken possession of from the
awardees. In the award Velappan’s name is also mentioned as a person
LAA.No.1518/05 4
in joint occupation of the premises. This give support to the claim of
the appellants that their properties have also been acquired under the
award. Going by Ext.A2 sale deed, the execution which is not disputed
by the contesting respondents, the remaining extent under the
ownership of Sri.Bhargavan could not have been more than 910
sq.metres. Whatever that be, I have no doubt in my mind that the
appellants’ predecessor Velappan was entitled for proportionate
compensation for 53 sq.metres of land.
The result is that the appeal will stand allowed. It is found that
the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 52475/- + interest as on
31/10/1997 from out of the amounts in deposit. Upon cheque
application being filed by the appellants, the learned Subordinate Judge
will release the precise amount to the appellants. But in the
circumstances, parties will suffer their costs.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
LAA.No.1518/05 5