Vengilattu Radha vs State Of Kerala on 4 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Vengilattu Radha vs State Of Kerala on 4 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

LA App No. 553 of 2004()


1. VENGILATTU RADHA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :04/10/2007

 O R D E R
               KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
              ------------------------------------------------------------------
                           L.A.A.No.553 of 2004-C
              ------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Dated: October 4, 2007

                                      JUDGMENT

Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

This appeal by the 1st claimant is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 23.9.2003 in LAR No.369/2001 on the file of the Addl. Sub

Court, Thalassery. An extent of 0.2023 hectares of land was acquired for

Dharmadam Tourism Project. The Land Acquisition Officer as per award

No.3/2001 dated 9.3.2001 fixed Rs.2,08,875/- as compensation. The

amount is deposited and the reference is made stating that the claimant

did not produce the document of title during the award enquiry. The

appellant/claimant produced Exts.A1 to A3 to prove her title. Ext.A1 is the

deed in favour of the claimant by which she had obtained possessory right

from her assignor. Ext.A2 is the purchase certificate issued on 3.7.2001.

The Reference Court took the view that since the acquisition process was

over before the issuance of the purchase certificate, the claimant had not

obtained title to the property as on the date of acquisition. Therefore, the

Reference Court held that the appellant/claimant is not entitled to the

entire compensation amount. Accordingly, 1/4th of the amount was

ordered to be disbursed to the State and the remaining 3/4th shall be

disbursed to the appellant /claimant. This appeal is filed against the

direction in the judgment to disburse 1/4th of the amount to the State.

2. The appellant filed a statement before the Reference

LAA 553/2004 Page numbers

Court claiming the entire compensation amount and contended before us

that the Reference Court failed to note the application of S.72(c) which

gives no option to the cultivating tenant but to accept the assignment and

that Ext.A2 certificate should have been acted upon.

3. The property was taken from the absolute physical possession of

the appellant only. That the appellant was in possession as a cultivating

tenant was not in dispute. Ext.A2 is the purchase certificate issued to her

and she is the title holder. It is true that Ext.A2 was issued to the appellant

only after the commencement of the land acquisition proceedings. But

Ext.A2 should not have been looked upon by the learned Sub Judge as

though it is a post-litigation document or a document which is send lis

pendens. Ext.A2 purchase certificate is issued by virtue of S.72 of the

Kerala Land Reforms Act under which the appellant became entitled to

fixity of tenure on the day the Land Reforms Act came into force and

Ext.A2 is obviously issued in confirmation of cultivating tenancy rights

which the appellant was already having before the commencement of the

land acquisition proceedings. The apportionment of 1/4th of the

compensation amount to the State is illegal. Even the State has no case

that they have filed any claim statement claiming 1/4th of the compensation

amount or put forward any claim for apportionment of the compensation

amount. In such circumstances we find merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and

LAA 553/2004 Page numbers

decree under appeal to the extent of awarding 1/4th of the compensation

amount to the State. The appellant/claimant is entitled to the full amount

of compensation decreed by the court below. The judgment and decree

under appeal is thus modified. There will be no order as to costs.

KURIAN JOSEPH
JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID
JUDGE.

mt/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *