IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS No. 570 of 1993(C)
1. Y.C.GEORGE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :06/09/2007
O R D E R
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.
-------------------------------------------------
A.S.No.570 of 1993
-------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2007
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the deceased original plaintiff in O.S.No.753/1991
on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. During the pendency of
this appeal the original plaintiff died and his legal representatives are impleaded as
addtional appellants. Appeal arises from a decree and judgment passed by the
court below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for a decree of permanent
prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from recovering any additional
amount from the appellants. The suit filed by the appellant and three other suits
were consolidated and jointly tried. All the three suits were dismissed. The
plaintiff was an allottee of plots owned by the respondent Greater Cochin
Development Authority in Kaloor Town Planning Scheme. Respondent requested
the Government to acquire the property by invoking the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. Plots belonging to various persons were acquired and after
making them developed house plots the defendant offered the same for sale by
tender. Plaintiff was the successful bidder of plot No.7 having an extent of 8.945
cents. He purchased the property for a price of Rs.8,700/- per cent. Total bid
amount was Rs.77,821.50 ps. Amount was paid and plot was allotted to him.
Sale was confirmed. Subsequently the plaintiff was asked to remit additional
AS No.570/1993 -: 2 :-
land value at the rate of Rs.7,367/- per cent. Challenging that demand the plaintiff
filed the suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction.
2. The main contention raised was that the provisions of amended
Land Acquisition Act have no retrospective operation and the land involved
in this case was acquired long prior to the commencement of the amendment Act
and there was no question of paying any enhanced compensation or additional land
value. It was averred that owner of the land purchased by the plaintiff never made
any claim for enhancement and so that the defendant did not incur any additional
land value in respect of the plot allotted to the plaintiff. It was also averred that
the purchase price paid by the plaintiff was inclusive of all kinds of developmental
charges and defendant was not entitled to claim any further amount on that count.
In short the contention raised was that the land allotted to the plaintiff was
acquired from a particular person and he was paid compensation and that amount
was taken into account while fixing the sale price and since the plaintiff paid the
entire amount and the defendant did not pay any additional land value in respect
of the 8.945 cents allotted to the plaintiff, he is not liable to pay any additional
compensation.
3. Defendant filed separate written statements in all the four suits.
The contention that the market value of the property allotted to the plaintiffs in all
the suits at the time of acquisition was only Rs.1,000/- per cent was denied. It
was contended that the defendant spent huge amount of money for the
AS No.570/1993 -: 3 :-
development of the plots acquired and without any profits the plots were
auctioned. It was also contended that the land owners moved the court for higher
compensation and due to the heavy financial burden the defendant got sanction to
realise uniform excess price from all allottees. It was contended that the
land was sold subject to such a condition and all the allottees had agreed to the
terms and conditions and accordingly the plaintiffs in all the suits were liable to
pay additional land value which the defendant had to pay to the land owners. So
the contention raised was that even if the owner of the land allotted to the plaintiff
in this case did not claim any enhancement, if any additional land value was paid
for any portion of land acquired for a particular scheme is to be uniformly shared
by all the allottees and not by the person who actually purchased that plot in
respect of which the defendant had to pay additional land value. Trial court after
trial found that every allottee was bound to remit additional charge and dismissed
the suit for injunction. Challenging that judgment and decree this appeal is filed.
4. Trial court relied on Exts.A1, B1 and B2 to hold that all the allottees
of a particular scheme had agreed that in respect of any additional land value the
Greater Cochin Development Authority had to pay will be equally met by all the
allottees. As rightly observed by the court below the plaintiff had no case that he
was forced to sign the sale deed. Trial Court had observed that in the sale deed it
was specifically stated that the vendee as well as the schedule property are liable
to make good the excess if any owing to any increase in miscellaneous and
AS No.570/1993 -: 4 :-
development charges as well as the excess if any payable under the land
acquisition award since the final cost of the work and amenities have not been
finally assessed and the compensation proceedings in respect of acquisition of the
lands have not been finally disposed of. There is no covenant between the plaintiff
and defendant to the effect that the plaintiff need pay the enhanced land value only
in case the defendant had to pay additional compensation to the owner of the land
allotted to him. In other words there is no agreement between the the plaintiff
and defendant to the effect that if the former owner of the land which was allotted
to the plaintiff did not make any claim he need not pay any excess amount. So
going by the terms of the documents it is clear that all the allottees had agreed to
contribute equally in respect of any additional charges which the defendant had to
incur. In view of this agreement the plaintiff cannot be now turned round and
contend that he need pay additional amount only in case the former owner of the
land allotted to him makes any claim for additional compensation in respect of that
particular plot. So the reasoning of the trial court is perfectly correct. I do not
find any reason to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the court
below. So the appeal is only to be dismissed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the
respondent/defendant had claimed a huge amount by way of interest. In Central
Bank of India v. Ravindra (AIR 2001 SC 3095) a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question of interest payable under a
AS No.570/1993 -: 5 :-
decree passed by the court. Though there is no decree passed allowing the
respondent to recover the amount with interest it is only just and proper that the
respondent considers why the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
Central Bank of India’s case (supra) shall not apply in this case also if the
appellants make a request for scaling down the interest. It is open to the
appellants to approach the respondent Greater Cochin Development Authority and
file an application claiming concession regarding the rate of interest. Appellant
shall file the application within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. If such an application is received, the respondent shall consider the
same in accordance with law and quantify the amount due from the appellants
within another six weeks from the date of receipt of application. Until the amount
is quantified, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the appellants.
C.M.P.No.3352/1993 will stand dismissed.
K. PADMANABHAN NAIR
JUDGE
cks
AS No.570/1993 -: 6 :-
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
A.S.No.570 of 1993
JUDGMENT
6th September, 2007.