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/-